State v. Avellone

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Avellone

792 S.W.2d 54, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1027, 1990 WL 88967

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1990

DocketNo. 57419

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 792 S.W.2d 54 (State v. Avellone) 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. Avellone, 792 S.W.2d 54, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1027, 1990 WL 88967 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals a judgment finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated. We affirm.

Defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he was operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. § 577.010, RSMo 1986. We review the State’s evidence as true together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and all contrary evidence and inferences are discharged. State v. Faulhaber, 782 S.W.2d 687, 689 [3] (Mo.App.1989).

There is little question defendant was intoxicated. The evidence, however, must link the defendant with driving an automobile while intoxicated. State v. Easley, 515 S.W.2d 600, 602 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1974). At approximately 10:20 p.m. on June 3, 1989, Trooper Duckett was called to respond to a one-car accident in Washington County, Missouri. He arrived at the scene of the accident at about 10:40 p.m. Upon arrival, he observed one vehicle had been involved in the accident. He saw two persons standing near the vehicle and approximately six persons standing around the scene of the accident. He asked the two persons standing near the vehicle if either knew who was driving the vehicle. Defendant came forward and identified himself as the driver. Defendant told the trooper his car ran off the roadway. The trooper’s report, admitted into evidence without objection, showed the accident occurred about 10:15 p.m.

After smelling intoxicating liquors on defendant’s breath, noticing defendant had slurred speech and that defendant was staggering, the trooper asked defendant to perform three field sobriety tests. Defendant “failed” all three tests. Defendant was placed under arrest and taken to the police station. There defendant submitted to a breath analysis test which resulted in a reading of a blood alcohol content of .145 of one percent. The evidence was more than sufficient to show defendant was driving a vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. State v. Helm, 755 S.W.2d 256, 259[2] (Mo.App.1988); State v. Brown, 749 S.W.2d 448, 450—451[3] (Mo.App.1988); Easley, 515 S.W.2d at 602 [1, 2].

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals a judgment finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated. We affirm.

Defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he was operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. § 577.010, RSMo 1986. We review the State’s evidence as true together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and all contrary evidence and inferences are discharged. State v. Faulhaber, 782 S.W.2d 687, 689 [3] (Mo.App.1989).

There is little question defendant was intoxicated. The evidence, however, must link the defendant with driving an automobile while intoxicated. State v. Easley, 515 S.W.2d 600, 602 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1974). At approximately 10:20 p.m. on June 3, 1989, Trooper Duckett was called to respond to a one-car accident in Washington County, Missouri. He arrived at the scene of the accident at about 10:40 p.m. Upon arrival, he observed one vehicle had been involved in the accident. He saw two persons standing near the vehicle and approximately six persons standing around the scene of the accident. He asked the two persons standing near the vehicle if either knew who was driving the vehicle. Defendant came forward and identified himself as the driver. Defendant told the trooper his car ran off the roadway. The trooper’s report, admitted into evidence without objection, showed the accident occurred about 10:15 p.m.

After smelling intoxicating liquors on defendant’s breath, noticing defendant had slurred speech and that defendant was staggering, the trooper asked defendant to perform three field sobriety tests. Defendant “failed” all three tests. Defendant was placed under arrest and taken to the police station. There defendant submitted to a breath analysis test which resulted in a reading of a blood alcohol content of .145 of one percent. The evidence was more than sufficient to show defendant was driving a vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. State v. Helm, 755 S.W.2d 256, 259[2] (Mo.App.1988); State v. Brown, 749 S.W.2d 448, 450—451[3] (Mo.App.1988); Easley, 515 S.W.2d at 602 [1, 2].

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 S.W.2d 54, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1027, 1990 WL 88967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-avellone-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack