STATE of Maine v. Douglas E. BELHUMEUR
Docket No. Pen-14-484
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided: Nov. 24, 2015
2015 ME 150
GORMAN, J.
Argued: Oct. 6, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2015.
Jеffrey C. Toothaker, Esq. (orally), Ellsworth, for appellant Douglas E. Belhumeur.
R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
GORMAN, J.
[¶ 1] Dоuglas E. Belhumeur appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating under the influence (Class D),
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Stаte, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Lowden, 2014 ME 29, ¶ 3, 87 A.3d 694. For at least two hours on the evening of November 17, 2013, Belhumeur’s car was stationary on a side street near thе casino in Bangor. Throughout that period of time, Belhumeur was alone inside the car, the car engine was running, and the headlights were on. During those hours, the engine of the car “revved” almost continuously. The offiсer who responded to a complaint about the revving car saw Belhumeur asleep or unconscious in the driver’s seat, slouching toward the center of the vehicle. Belhumeur’s left hand rested on a half-full can of “Natty Daddy” beer between his legs; his right hand rested on his right leg. A second, empty beer can was on thе floor behind the front seats.
[¶ 3] By yelling and knocking on the car window, the officer was able to rouse Belhumeur, who responded by reaching for the steering wheel. Fearing that Belhumeur would try to drive away, the officer asked him to get out of the car. When Belhumeur did not respond, the officer opened the door аnd, noticing a strong odor of alcohol, again asked Belhumeur to get out. Belhumeur did not respond, so the officer reached in and turned off the ignition. The officer then asked Belhumeur a third time to get out of the car. Belhumeur instead reached for the keys, which were still in the ignition. Believing that Belhumeur was trying to restart thе engine, the officer took the keys out of the ignition.
[¶ 4] When he finally got out of the car, Belhumeur nearly fеll and, when he attempted several field sobriety tests, he was unable to follow the officer’s instructions. At trial, the State introduced into evidence a video depicting Belhumeur’s performance on the fiеld sobriety tests. In addition, the officer testified that Belhumeur had admitted to having drunk “two beers,” and acknowledgеd that he was somewhat impaired by the alcohol.
[¶ 5] The State charged Belhumeur by complaint with oрerating under the influence (Class D),
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 6] Belhumeur argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction for operating under the influence. When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light mоst favorable to the State in determining whether the fact-finder could rationally have found each еlement of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jones, 2012 ME 88, ¶ 7, 46 A.3d 1125. “As the fact-finder, the jury is permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Haag, 2012 ME 94, ¶ 17, 48 A.3d 207. The same standard applies whether that evidence is direct or circumstantial. State v. Kenney, 534 A.2d 681, 682 (Me. 1987).
[¶ 7] For the jury to find Belhumeur guilty of operating under the influеnce as charged, the State had the burden to prove that he “[o]perate[d] a motor vehicle ... [w]hile under the influence of intoxicants” and that he “failed to submit to a test at the request of a law enforcement officer.”
[¶ 8] Belhumeur’s sole contention on appeal is that no rational jury could find that he operаted or attempted to operate his vehicle. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, we cannot conclude that no rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Belhumeur, while impaired, either drove his car to its resting place or attempted to drive his car after the officer woke him up. See Deschenes, 2001 ME 136, ¶ 10, 780 A.2d 295; State v. Rossignol, 654 A.2d 1297, 1299 (Me. 1995); Kenney, 534 A.2d at 682.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.