Following a bench trial on February 19, 2004, John E. Adams (“Appellant”) was convicted of the class B misdemean- or of driving while intoxicated, in violаtion of Section 577.010, RSMo 2000. The trial court suspended execution of Appellant’s thirty-day jail sentence, and Defendant was plаced on unsupervised probation for one year and further ordered to pay a $150.00 fine plus court costs. Appellant аppeals his conviction and sentence, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of guilty beyond а reasonable doubt. Appellant contends his blood alcohol content was below the “legal limit” and certain
On September 24, 2003, Trooper Richard Stewart, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, received a call from dispatch to investigate a motor vеhicle collision at 1-44 and the exit to Highway 174 in Lawrence County. When Trooper Stewart made contact with Appellant, who was involved in the collision, he observed that Appellant’s eyes were “bloodshot and watery,” and he also detected a moderate odor of intoxicants on Appellant’s breath. Stewart further testified that Appellant’s pupils “had a poor reaction to light[,]” which indicated that Appellant may have been impaired or intoxicated. Appellant stated he had consumed one beer earlier that day.
Stewart administered three field sobriety tests: the one-leg stand; the walk-and-turn; and the horizontal gаze nystagmus. When Appellant performed poorly on all three, Trooper Stewart requested that Appellant submit to a рortable breath test, and Appellant complied. Stewart subsequently placed Appellant under arrest and transported him to the Lawrence County Sheriffs Office. There, Appellant submitted to a breathalyzer test, which recorded a blood alcоhol concentration of .061. Appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated.
At trial, Appellant presented no evidencе. The trooper who arrested Appellant testified on behalf of the State. Appellant moved for acquittal at the close of all of the evidence, which the trial court overruled.
In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends that “the conditions of high blood pressure, recently being in a wreck, head injury, loss of a toe, middle ear problems, and being on mеdication for his high blood pressure” negatively affected his performance on the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests administerеd by Trooper Stewart. In addition, Appellant asserts that his “severe stigmatism,” ingestion of high blood pressure medication that morning, and a head injury allegedly suffered in the collision could account for the alleged nys-tagmus that the officer observed while administering thе horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
When Trooper Stewart testified regarding the administration of the field sobriety tests, he stated that when he asked if Appellant had any physical impairment that would affect his performance of the tests, Appellant may have told him that he had weak knees. Later, while completing the Alcohol Influence Report, Appellant advised Trooper Stewart that he had taken prescription medication for high blood pressure that morning. When questioned about physical defeсts, Appellant advised him that he was missing a toe on his left foot, had only one-half of one lung, and was “hard of hearing.” On cross-examination, counsel referred to a bump on Appellant’s head, allegedly sustained during the collision, and Trooper Stewart stated that Appellant “may have had a bump on his head.”
In our review of the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we give the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence, and disregard all contrary or unfavorable evidence and inferences.
State v. Buckler,
“Any intоxication that in any manner impairs the ability of a person to operate an automobile is sufficient to sustain a conviction of driving while intoxicated.”
State v. Wilson,
Section 577.037.3, RSMo 2000, allows for “the introduction of other competent evidence [other than chemical tеst results] bearing upon the question whether the person was intoxicated.” Here, there was testimony from the arresting officer that hе observed physical indications that Appellant was intoxicated at the scene of the collision. Those observatiоns included bloodshot, watery eyes and an odor of intoxicants. In addition, Appellant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Appellant also admitted to having one beer prior to the collision. In
State v. Myers,
This court defers to the trial court’s determinations of witness credibility.
State v. Scholl,
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. Respondent has filed no brief in this appeal. While there is no penalty for failing to file a brief, we are required to decide this case without the benefit of Respondent's authorities and point of view.
State v. White,