Operating While Intoxicated Conviction Upheld On Appeal
On September 18, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Waldeck, upholding a jury conviction for operating while intoxicated. The defendant was sentenced by the trial court to probation for two years and 183 days to serve in jail. This was the defendant’s third offense.
“Defendant’s conviction arises from a traffic accident that occurred on October 30, 2003. The principal question at trial was whether defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The prosecutor contended that defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, but defendant asserted that the alcohol in his system was consumed shortly after the accident occurred.”
“A store clerk was the only witness who encountered defendant before defendant claimed to have consumed alcohol after the accident in order to control his breathing. While the clerk testified that he did not notice anything unusual in defendant’s demeanor or smell the odor of intoxicants, he also stated that he had only a brief conversation with defendant and did not pay close attention to him. Defendant appears to contend that because the other witnesses who encountered him after the accident also did not notice anything unusual in his demeanor or smell the odor of intoxicants, Officer Prough was either mistaken or lying. However, one witness testified that he was too far away to form an opinion about whether defendant was intoxicated, Elbert Sylvester had lost his sense of smell, and his wife stated that she was not really paying attention to defendant. Officer Prough noticed the odor and determined that it came from defendant. He stated that defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and, after having defendant perform several field sobriety tests, concluded that defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The jury was able to view a police video of defendant’s interaction with Officer Prough and performance during the sobriety tests. Defendant’s blood alcohol content was .09 approximately one hour after the accident. Defendant testified regarding his version of events.”
Click here to read the entire opinion.
