State v. Sienkiewicz, 162 Conn.App. 407

On April 3, 2011, Officer Bruce Moro found a Camaro stopped partially on a sidewalk; its engine was cranking but not starting.
The defendant, Pawel Sienkiewicz, was seated in the driver’s seat with glossy, confused-looking eyes and slurred speech.
When asked to exit, the defendant nearly fell; officer smelled a distinct odor of alcohol.
Officer touched the Camaro’s hood and found it warm, suggesting recent operation; a horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated intoxication.
Defendant was arrested and later convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (CGS § 14-227a(a)); sentenced to three years (22 months to serve), with probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved the defendant "operated" the vehicle while intoxicated	State argued circumstantial evidence (driver in seat, warm hood, vehicle on sidewalk, no one else present) supports inference defendant operated the car	Sienkiewicz argued no proof he drove onto the sidewalk and the vehicle may have been inoperable when officers arrived	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence was sufficient to let jury infer defendant had driven the Camaro onto the sidewalk and thus operated it

State v. Lee, 138 Conn. App. 420 (discussing that "operating" is broader than "driving" and review standard for sufficiency)
State v. Jones, 173 Conn. 91 (articulating sufficiency review principles)
Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (stating no distinction in probative force between direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Teti, 50 Conn. App. 34 (upholding operation inference from circumstantial evidence)
State v. Ducatt, 22 Conn. App. 88 (finding operation where defendant was in driver’s seat and had manipulated vehicle machinery)