The Appeals Court has upheld an OUI conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. According to the facts, the motorist, Steven Bellisle, crashed his car just after midnight in Wrentham.
When police arrived at the scene, Steven was hiding in a construction site about 50 yards from the vehicle.
Although no one saw Steven driving the car, he had a broken key fob in his pocket when police seized him. Additionally, he told officers that he had been traveling from Providence, Rhode Island.
No field sobriety test or breath test were done. However, both the arresting officer and an eyewitness observed the “classic indicia of intoxication“: slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and breath that smelled of alcohol.
Both at trial and on appeal, Steven argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that he operated the vehicle and that he was in fact intoxicated.
Neither the jurors nor the Appeals Court justices were persuaded. In its opinion, the Appeal Court wrote,
A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone and the Commonwealth need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to prove its case. Further, if the evidence lends itself to several conflicting interpretations, it is the province of the jury to resolve the discrepancy and determine where the truth lies. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Based on this standard of review, the justices concluded that jurors could reasonably find that the defendant did operate the crashed vehicle and that he was intoxicated at the time.