*1 proposed owned them. The order
purports usage to control the land home- parties
site who are not owners to this Appellants
action or to the action. first authority
further seek to limit the of home-
site to come onto owners their invitations private paragraph
their The last property. order appellants’ proposed amending
injunction states:
“Except insofar as modified herein pri- Defendants of thе roadways
vate in the North Fork Subdivi-
sion shall unauthorized use under and
by virtue of the Supreme opinion Court Injunction
and the entered herein which
has been affirmed and Defendants are
perpetually enjoined from any such au- use in origi-
thorized accordance with the Injunction
nal entered herein.” (Empha-
sis thing most charitable can paragraph
said about that it seems injunction beyond pro-
extend what injunction original
vided in the what event, mandated this court. incomprehensible paragraph
tends obfuscate the dimensions
injunction.
We hold the trial court substantially
complied with the mandate of this court.
Affirmed. CRUM, Appellant William
James
(Defendant), SPRINGS,
The CITY OF ROCK (Plaintiff).
Appellee
No. 5693. Court
Supreme Wyoming. 15, 1982.
Oct.
*2
McKinney,
J.
of Pickett & McKin-
Harley
November
was also uncontroverted.
for
ney,
Springs,
appellant.
Rock
was
There
that
testimony
twicе
drove
intersections with red lights,
for
appearance
appellee.
No
the trier of
so that
fact could have inferred
ROSE,
J.,
Before
C.
and
THOM-
that
was incapable
safely
of
driv-
BROWN,
and
AS, ROONEY
JJ.
was,
a motor vеhicle.
however,
There
a
of proof
failure
of the element
the
BROWN, Justice.
under
appellant was
guilty municipal
was found
Appellant
cating liquor.
violating
Springs City
court of
Rock
Ordi-
Evidence of a blood test
is not
5-157, driving while
the
nance No.
to
a person
appealed
He
influence of alcohol.
the influence of intoxicating liquor. Ham
for the Third
District Court
Judicial Dis-
mer v. Town of
P.2d 884
trict,
County, Wyoming,
Sweetwater
Here,
the
officer
present
municipal
argues
affirmed
He
the only
ed
testimony
on appeal
that he was not
advised
The
and behavior.
offi
and
rights,
City
failed to
his
cer
was
with
prove the elements of
offense
flushed,
that his
was
that he
charged.
he was
having some
trouble
his
a
Appellant
blood alcohol
leaning up against
balance without
municipal
court
found that the
that he
and
could not
the field
results
inadmissible.
It rulеd that
sobriety tests “too well.”
been
to
leg
“I asked him stand with his
without
the admission
the blood test
out in front of him and
guilty.
reverse
results to find
understand).
do
he couldn’t
not
And
agree
conten-
because
foot down
several
to
thе evidence was insufficient
times.
support his conviction.
then
and
turn
City
Springs
Rock
Ordinance No. 5-
back
around
take five
towards
157(a), in effect at the time of appellant’s
toe.
the heel to
He couldn’t dо this with-
trial, provided:
arrest
balance several times.
who
person
“It is unlawful
for
asked him to stand at modified attention
li-
under the influence
with his
head back and his
quor
him in-
degree
to a
which renders
he in this posi-
vehicle,
safely driving a
capable of
motor
tion.”
have
physical
drive or
actual
control of
policeman
that the
within the
of Rock
any vehicle
not do “too well” on the
appellant did
sobri-
Springs.”
test
itsеlf to
ety
enough by
allow a
of the offense
(1)
elements
are
trier of fact to draw a
person
(2) be
charged
influence of
adopting
intoxication. We would be
a
intoxicating liquor (3) to a degree whiсh
permitting
an inference
intoxication
incapable of safely driving
a
renders
to be drawn from a decision
vehicle; (4) that the accused be driv-
motor
fail
do
intoxication.
“too
physical control
vehicle
or in actual
of a
on a
test for a
well”
number of
(5) within
city
Springs
on
having nothing to do with
reasons
intoxi-
elements
about a certain date. Each
cating liquor:
facie
prima
establish
proved
must be
“ ‘
question
approximately
case. There
There are
have
identity
pathological
conditions
an automobile
of alcoholism.
he had been
toms
to those
An
similar
might
Rock
about
within the
condition
apparent alcoholic
due to
alcohol at all.
It
be merely
evidence tending to es-
of injury
result
or sickness.
tablish that intoxicating liquor
respon-
as
taking
medicines often act
if
sible for
behavior аnd
imbibing
freely.
been
too
The diabetic in
ance, the evidence was not sufficient “to
of,
of,
need
or with an overdose
insulin
form the
basis for
reasonable inference of
*3
may
if he
Inju-
act as
were intoxiсated.
guilt beyond a reasonable
Harvey
doubt.”
system
ries to the nervous
or a concussion
State, Wyo.,
1386,
v.
(1979).
1387
may
brain
create alcoholic
Appellant was under
explain
duty
**
*
Butts,
toms.
v.
actions;
prosecution
had the burden
926, 932, 21
799 (1960),
N.Y.S.2d
Misc.2d
of proof.
prosecution
If the
presented
had
citing
1953,
Leg.Doc.,
from New York
No.
linking
evidence
the appellant with al-
25,
11-12.
pp.
cohol, then appellant would have been well
The above-cited case went on to hold
advised to provide some explanation if he
that a
test was required
chemical
to obtain wanted to
prosecution’s
rebut the
proof of
cоnviction,
something
have al
being
the element of
under the influence of
is
ready ruled
not necessary. Hammer v.
there was no
Town of
supra.
have indi
proof to rebut.
cated, however, that
must
there
be somе
Sheridan,
v. City
Norwood
ingestion
of alcohol. Goich v.
(1979),
whether there based substantial di- circumstantial, both, which, lack of evidence such rect supplied by juror what a with the reasonable inferences that knows or therefrom, procedure be drawn will sustain the ver- believes. Under our ” Blakely State, Wyo., solely upon diсt.’ to base verdict (1975). given and law as him the * * *” in, from, “[mjoderate or abstinent 18 means Robinson Black’s Wyo. intoxicating liquors,” 106 P. the use 5th Ed. “Intoxicated” Dictionary, Law appli- case is The doctrine of the Robinson intoxicant, an “[ajffected by means aware municipal judge here. The cable intoxicating liquor,” influence of an blood but had of the results of the Dictionary, Law 5th Ed. He Black’s ruled that this test was not admissible. not, therefore, knowledge then was that convict the to determine if he was tests Reversed. sober, i.e., not under he did not do well in cating liquor; that ROONEY, Justice, dissenting, with whom tests; he was arrested for and that Justice, joins. while under the while *4 founded on the majority opinion intoxicating liquor. fluence contention that there was no evidence sub- suggests that majority opinion appellant mitted at the trial that in appellant’s was no evidence to tiе intoxicating liquor. I find a cause of intoxica- ance and behavior with plain and uncontroverted the evidence “tending to tion, was no evidence that there he was under such influence. intoxicating liquor wаs re- establish that officer testified that After ap- appellant’s behavior and sponsible for observing stopped he had above-quoted I submit pearance.” him his vehicle two red drive just that. The tests testimоny does lights, he testified: so- if he was appellant were to determine him —I traced him and “A. We observed ber, i.e., a result of the not intoxicated. As license, he him for his driver’s asked driving while tests, was arrested for he face; his had a flushed to his the influence of in- having and he was speech was Obviously, appellant toxicating liquor. some trouble his balance failed the tests de- because he arrested against his car. I leaning up not he was whether or signed to determine sobriety so- asked him to do some —field intoxicating liquor. the influence of did, me, he tests for which he briety itself, rational permits in Such very them well. did not was under the conclusion “Q. sobriety What tests? liquor. fluence of right I him to stand with his “A. asked of him and leg out in front absolutely no evi- there was Inasmuch as understand). And he couldn’t do contrary, it was within dence to the his foot down sever- this without to find as a matter the trial court al times. was under the influ- of fact and then turn five back towards around and take court, affirming in the hold- The district this with- the heel to toe. He couldn’t do court, properly summarized of the his balance several times. on this issue: modified atten- asked him to stand at a [appellant], stopping After him his head back and his noted the defendant’s witness] [the in this and he and his flushed, his slurred position. short, unsteady. balance him the tests I advised giving “After by test administered sobriety failed the that he was under arrest ” ”* * (Bracketed material the officer. (Emphasis while intoxicated. added.) emphasis noted the district court is a test to determine appeal, quot- for consideration standard is sober. “Sober” whether or not a from Harvey Wyo., Also referring Reinholt v. 1386, 1387 (1979): (1979); oft-repeated “The which we test Association, Police Protection sufficiency evidence on appeal of Wyo., (1980); Brittain v. criminal matter is that we examine and Booth, Wyo., P.2d accept as true the evidence of prose- The evidence not only sufficient cution, leaving out of consideration en- form basis for a reasonable inference of tirely the evidence of the defendant guilt beyond doubt, a reasonable it was therewith, conflict give and we establish, infer- every favor- ence, finding the fаct finder of able inference which may reasonably and beyond a reasonable doubt. fairly be drawn therefrom. Stated an- I would affirm the district court’s affirm- way is not whether the evidence —it ance of the judgment establishes guilt beyond a us, doubt for but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasona-
ble inference of beyond a reasonable
doubt to be jury drawn when the
evidence is viewed in the most fa-
vorable to the State. [Citations.]”