Miller v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Miller v. District of Columbia

517 A.2d 1068, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 481

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 1986

Docket85-987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 517 A.2d 1068 (Miller v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. District of Columbia, 517 A.2d 1068, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 481 (D.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Gregory Miller claims his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor was based upon insufficient evidence. D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(l) (1986 Supp.).

On March 9, 1985, appellant was stopped by the United States Park Police as he slowly drove his disabled vehicle on East Basin Drive. The officers’ attention was drawn to the vehicle by a loud scraping sound and its slow speed. Otherwise there was nothing unusual in the manner in which appellant operated his car.

The arresting officer testified that appellant’s clothes were mussed; he had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage about his breath and person; his eyes were bloodshot; and he spoke in a slurred manner. The officer further testified that appellant fell out of the car when asked to exit the vehicle and was unsteady once he regained his feet. He failed all the field sobriety tests administered by the officers and refused to take a chemical test.

We assume for present purposes that proof of impairment of driving ability is an element of the offense charged. 1 See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.97 (3d ed. 1978). Plainly, on the facts here, such a conclusion could be drawn by a reasonable mind be *1069 yond a reasonable doubt. See Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113, 114 n. 2 (D.C.1983). Appellant’s suggestion that a conviction can occur only where there is proof of impairment based on the manner in which the vehicle was actually operated, finds no support in the statute or our case law. All courts probably agree that proof of driving in an abnormal or errant manner is not required. R. ERWIN, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, § 1.04 at 1-68 (3rd ed. 1983).

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant quotes language to this effect from D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(2), although his conviction was under D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(1).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Gregory Miller claims his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor was based upon insufficient evidence. D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(l) (1986 Supp.).

On March 9, 1985, appellant was stopped by the United States Park Police as he slowly drove his disabled vehicle on East Basin Drive. The officers’ attention was drawn to the vehicle by a loud scraping sound and its slow speed. Otherwise there was nothing unusual in the manner in which appellant operated his car.

The arresting officer testified that appellant’s clothes were mussed; he had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage about his breath and person; his eyes were bloodshot; and he spoke in a slurred manner. The officer further testified that appellant fell out of the car when asked to exit the vehicle and was unsteady once he regained his feet. He failed all the field sobriety tests administered by the officers and refused to take a chemical test.

We assume for present purposes that proof of impairment of driving ability is an element of the offense charged. 1 See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.97 (3d ed. 1978). Plainly, on the facts here, such a conclusion could be drawn by a reasonable mind be *1069 yond a reasonable doubt. See Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113, 114 n. 2 (D.C.1983). Appellant’s suggestion that a conviction can occur only where there is proof of impairment based on the manner in which the vehicle was actually operated, finds no support in the statute or our case law. All courts probably agree that proof of driving in an abnormal or errant manner is not required. R. ERWIN, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, § 1.04 at 1-68 (3rd ed. 1983).

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant quotes language to this effect from D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(2), although his conviction was under D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 A.2d 1068, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack