State v. Pfleger

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pfleger

341 S.W.3d 876, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 746, 2011 WL 2118835

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 31, 2011·No. WD 72456·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

This is a driving while intoxicated case. The primary issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, given that the arresting officer did not observe the defendant make any unlawful moving violation. The defendant admitted to having smoked marijuana that day; he possessed marijuana at the time of the arrest; he failed certain field-sobriety tests; chemical test results showed that marijuana was still in his system at the time of the arrest; and an expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the defendant was impaired by the use of marijuana. We hold that such evidence was *877 sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM:

This is a driving while intoxicated case. The primary issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, given that the arresting officer did not observe the defendant make any unlawful moving violation. The defendant admitted to having smoked marijuana that day; he possessed marijuana at the time of the arrest; he failed certain field-sobriety tests; chemical test results showed that marijuana was still in his system at the time of the arrest; and an expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the defendant was impaired by the use of marijuana. We hold that such evidence was *877 sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Pfleger, 341 S.W.3d 876, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 746, 2011 WL 2118835 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

341 S.W.3d 876 (State v. Pfleger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related