State v. Armistead

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Armistead

655 S.W.2d 852, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4039

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 2, 1983

DocketNo. 45938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 655 S.W.2d 852 (State v. Armistead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Armistead, 655 S.W.2d 852, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4039 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

In a court tried case, defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle in [853]*853an intoxicated condition, a Class A misdemeanor, § 577.010.2, RSMo.1978. We af-f’rm-

Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. On appeal, the trial court’s ruling is to be affirmed if its findings are supported by substantial evidence. State v. Griffin, 640 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.1982). We accept as true all evidence tending to prove defendant’s guilt and all inferences favorable to the state that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. Credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is for the trier of facts. State v. Griffin, 640 S.W.2d at 131; State v. Chester, 445 S.W.2d 393, 397 (Mo.App.1969).

Section 577.030.1(3) RSMo 1978 provides a breathalyzer test result of .10 percent or greater “shall be prima facie evidence that the person was intoxicated at the time the specimen was taken.” State v. Powell, 618 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Mo.App.1981). Further, under § 577.010 RSMo 1978, “any intoxication that in any manner impairs the ability of a person to operate [a motor vehicle] is sufficient.” State v. Laws, 547 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo.App.1977).

The trial court could have found the following: Defendant was driving on Highway 1-44 at 75 m.p.h. for six miles and failed to drive within a single lane. Six or seven times, he swerved from the right lane into the left lane and then onto the shoulder of the road. The arresting officer detected a strong odor of intoxicating beverages on him. He was swaying as he walked to the rear of his vehicle. He admitted he did not do well on the field sobriety test. Finally, a breathalyzer test administered to him showed he had .16 of 1 percent by weight of alcohol in his blood. This evidence supports the conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

In a court tried case, defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle in [853]*853an intoxicated condition, a Class A misdemeanor, § 577.010.2, RSMo.1978. We af-f’rm-

Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. On appeal, the trial court’s ruling is to be affirmed if its findings are supported by substantial evidence. State v. Griffin, 640 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.1982). We accept as true all evidence tending to prove defendant’s guilt and all inferences favorable to the state that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. Credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is for the trier of facts. State v. Griffin, 640 S.W.2d at 131; State v. Chester, 445 S.W.2d 393, 397 (Mo.App.1969).

Section 577.030.1(3) RSMo 1978 provides a breathalyzer test result of .10 percent or greater “shall be prima facie evidence that the person was intoxicated at the time the specimen was taken.” State v. Powell, 618 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Mo.App.1981). Further, under § 577.010 RSMo 1978, “any intoxication that in any manner impairs the ability of a person to operate [a motor vehicle] is sufficient.” State v. Laws, 547 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo.App.1977).

The trial court could have found the following: Defendant was driving on Highway 1-44 at 75 m.p.h. for six miles and failed to drive within a single lane. Six or seven times, he swerved from the right lane into the left lane and then onto the shoulder of the road. The arresting officer detected a strong odor of intoxicating beverages on him. He was swaying as he walked to the rear of his vehicle. He admitted he did not do well on the field sobriety test. Finally, a breathalyzer test administered to him showed he had .16 of 1 percent by weight of alcohol in his blood. This evidence supports the conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 S.W.2d 852, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-armistead-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack