State v. Chestnut

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Chestnut

462 So. 2d 674

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 4, 1984

DocketK 2389

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 674 (State v. Chestnut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chestnut, 462 So. 2d 674 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

462 So.2d 674 (1984)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Harold CHESTNUT.

No. K 2389.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

December 4, 1984.

*675 John F. Rowley, Dist. Atty., Victor J. Dauterive, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Chalmette, for State.

J. Wayne Mumphrey, Jeffrey Perigoni, Chalmette, for relator.

Before REDMANN, C.J., and GARRISON and BARRY, JJ.

REDMANN, Chief Judge.

We granted certiorari to afford to relator appellate review of his conviction and sentence of ten days and $125 fine for operating a motor vehicle while "under the influence of alcoholic beverages," La.R.S. 14:98.

Relator's complaint relative to the form reciting his refusal to be tested by photoelectric intoximeter is pretermitted as legally insignificant in our context. Refusal to be tested is irrelevant to the charged offense (although test results might be evidence of intoxication or non-intoxication).

Relator also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La.1982). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient.

The evidence includes testimony of an investigating deputy sheriff (in whom the trial judge evidently placed credibility rather than in defendant's ex-wife, who drove to the scene to assist defendant) of a "strong" smell of alcohol on defendant's breath, of defendant's slurred speech and "staggering." The deputy also testified of defendant's "fumbling" on picking up coins and stumbling on turning around in field sobriety tests. Two other witnesses established that defendant was driving an automobile.

That evidence suffices to show both that defendant had been drinking alcoholic beverages and that those beverages had influenced his ability to do such simple tasks as walk, turn around and talk: in short, that defendant was "under the influence of alcoholic beverages" while driving a motor vehicle.

Affirmed.

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

462 So.2d 674 (1984)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Harold CHESTNUT.

No. K 2389.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

December 4, 1984.

*675 John F. Rowley, Dist. Atty., Victor J. Dauterive, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Chalmette, for State.

J. Wayne Mumphrey, Jeffrey Perigoni, Chalmette, for relator.

Before REDMANN, C.J., and GARRISON and BARRY, JJ.

REDMANN, Chief Judge.

We granted certiorari to afford to relator appellate review of his conviction and sentence of ten days and $125 fine for operating a motor vehicle while "under the influence of alcoholic beverages," La.R.S. 14:98.

Relator's complaint relative to the form reciting his refusal to be tested by photoelectric intoximeter is pretermitted as legally insignificant in our context. Refusal to be tested is irrelevant to the charged offense (although test results might be evidence of intoxication or non-intoxication).

Relator also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La.1982). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient.

The evidence includes testimony of an investigating deputy sheriff (in whom the trial judge evidently placed credibility rather than in defendant's ex-wife, who drove to the scene to assist defendant) of a "strong" smell of alcohol on defendant's breath, of defendant's slurred speech and "staggering." The deputy also testified of defendant's "fumbling" on picking up coins and stumbling on turning around in field sobriety tests. Two other witnesses established that defendant was driving an automobile.

That evidence suffices to show both that defendant had been drinking alcoholic beverages and that those beverages had influenced his ability to do such simple tasks as walk, turn around and talk: in short, that defendant was "under the influence of alcoholic beverages" while driving a motor vehicle.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chestnut-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

STATE of Louisiana v. Harold CHESTNUT.

J. Wayne Mumphrey, Jeffrey Perigoni, Chalmette, for relator.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Harold CHESTNUT.