The Appeals Court has ruled that evidence of a motorist’s alcohol-induced “diminished capacity” alcohol is enough for an OUI conviction. Proof that the driver was in fact drunk is not necessary.
Around midnight on September 29, 2019, a state trooper observed Robert Ekmalian exist the Cumberland Farms convenience store in Ware, MA.
According to the trooper, Robert shouted and jumped around the packing lot before getting into his car. He then drove his car on to Route 32 without turning on his headlights.
Robert drove a short distance without incident before the trooper stopped him.
The trooper noticed that Robert’s eyes were glassy, his breath smelled of alcohol, and his speech was slurred.
Robert admitted to having two beers earlier in the evening.
After failing a field sobriety test, he was placed under arrest and charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Robert lost at trial and appealed the decision. On appeal he argued that the prosecution did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was in fact impaired.
The Appeals Court upheld the guilty verdict. First, the cited the pertinent case law:
The phrase ‘under the influence’ refers to impairment, to any degree, of an individual’s ability to safely perform the activity in question. Thus, in a prosecution for OUI, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s consumption of alcohol diminished the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. The Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant was drunk, only that alcohol diminished his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. A “diminished capacity to operate a motor vehicle may be inferred from circumstances other than actual bad driving. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Applying the stated case law to this incident, the court found that the circumstances amounted to “impaired operation”:
[T]hose circumstances included the defendant’s unorthodox behavior coming out of the convenience store, his driving (albeit only for a short while) in the dark without headlights, his slurred speech and poor balance, his glassy eyes, the odor of alcohol, his admission to having drunk alcohol earlier, and his inability to satisfactorily complete the field sobriety tests. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The full text of the opinion is attached below: