Young v. State, 119 So. 3d 309

On April 11, 2011, officers observed Ryan Young drive by, flip them off, make a U‑turn, and pass them again; officers observed an open beer can in his vehicle and later found multiple empty cans and a half‑full can.
Officer Shepherd stopped Young for a traffic violation; Shepherd smelled alcohol, Young admitted drinking, refused a breathalyzer, failed field‑sobriety tests, and urinated on himself in the patrol car.
While being booked, Young became belligerent and threatened to assault or kill Officer Luke Shepherd; he was charged with felony DUI (third offense) and retaliation against a public servant.
A jury convicted Young on both counts; he appealed raising four claims: indictment defect for retaliation, jury instruction omission for retaliation, insufficiency of evidence for DUI, and weight‑of‑the‑evidence for DUI.
The trial court denied a directed verdict on retaliation, instructed the jury on retaliation, and the appellate court reviewed the indictment, instructions, and sufficiency/weight challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Indictment adequacy for retaliation	Indictment omitted element that threat be "by any unlawful act"	Indictment alleged unlawful threat by stating Young "unlawfully...threatened...by threatening to assault" Shepherd	Affirmed: indictment sufficiently alleged unlawful act (threat to assault) and fairly informed Young
2. Jury instruction on retaliation	Instruction S‑3B omitted statutory phrase "by any unlawful act"	Instruction tracked unlawful threat language; defendant failed to object to final S‑3B	Procedurally barred; alternatively, S‑3B sufficiently included unlawful‑act element
3. Sufficiency of evidence for DUI	Evidence insufficient to prove impairment beyond reasonable doubt (no staggering, limited proof of amount drunk)	State presented circumstantial evidence: odor, open/empty cans, refusal of breath test, failed field tests, urination, erratic driving	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find impairment
4. Weight of evidence for DUI (new trial)	Verdict against weight of evidence; requires new trial	Evidence did not strongly preponderate against jury verdict	Affirmed: not an exceptional case warranting new trial

Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873 (Miss. 2000) (standard for reviewing indictment legal sufficiency)
Berry v. State, 996 So.2d 782 (Miss. 2008) (indictment must allege essential elements and fairly inform defendant)
Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829 (Miss. 2007) (same standard cited for indictments)
Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270 (Miss. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review and DUI common‑law principles)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (articulating burden and review standards for sufficiency/weight of evidence)