Police often encounter drunk drivers who are not actively driving a vehicle. The suspect may be asleep behind the wheel while the car idles in a parking lot. Or maybe the driver is standing beside the vehicle after a crash. There are innumerable ways in which circumstances could show an impaired person was operating an automobile.
Frequently I must explain to clients that the “but I wasn’t driving” defense does not guarantee an acquittal at their OUI trial.
Today the Appeals Court issued a decision that illustrates my point.
A defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of alcohol third offense.
According to court documents, an unidentified driver hit a parked car. Someone saw the accident, followed the driver, and reported the driver’s license plate number to police. The plate number belonged to the defendant.
The reporting party also followed the driver to a condo complex where the defendant lived. The driver parked in the defendant’s designed parking spot.
When police arrived they found the defendant inside his condominium sleeping on the couch. Police claim that he was drunk when they found him.
The defendant admitted to driving earlier in the day but claimed he was not impaired at the time.
The jurors didn’t believe him. Instead they found sufficient evidence that defendant operated his car while under the influence of alcohol.
The defendant appealed the conviction arguing that the jury lacked sufficient evidence for its verdict.
The Appeals Court upheld the verdict writing,
From all of these circumstances [listed above], and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the jury were entitled to find that the defendant operated the car in question.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.