Schlais v. State

Judge ALLARD.

NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3NA-12-225 CR

Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Naknek, Patricia L. Douglass, Judge. Appearances: Megan Webb, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Duke K. Circle, Assistant District Attorney, Dillingham, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Kossler, Judges. Judge ALLARD.

At about 5:30 p.m. on August 31, 2012, David C. Schlais picked up his daughter and her boyfriend at the Naknek airport. They then drove to the Fisherman's Bar in Naknek for drinks, where they remained for around an hour.

Shortly after driving away from Fisherman's Bar, Schlais got into an accident and flipped his four-wheeler. An eyewitness who helped Schlais at the accident scene testified that Schlais was sluggish, needed help standing, and smelled of alcohol. The eyewitness also called the police to report the crash.

Schlais's friends picked Schlais up and took him home. Shortly thereafter, a police officer arrived to investigate the crash. The police officer testified that Schlais smelled strongly of alcohol and failed multiple field sobriety tests. The police officer also testified that Schlais admitted he had "consumed some toddies at Fisherman's Bar." Schlais was charged with driving under the influence.

Schlais's defense at trial was that he had not been intoxicated when he crashed his four-wheeler. At trial, Schlais presented testimony from his daughter, his former mother-in-law, and Schlais himself that Schlais had only consumed one drink at Fisherman's Bar. Schlais blamed his sluggishness at the crash site on his having hit his head during the accident, and he claimed that he appeared drunk to the investigating officer because, after he got home, he became drunk on rum in an effort to dull pain from injuries he received in the crash.

The State argued that the jury should convict Schlais of driving under the influence based on the eyewitness and police officer's testimony that Schlais was drunk, Schlais's own admission that he drank several "toddies" at the Fisherman's Bar, and the lack of any evidence that Schlais had suffered a concussion or other head injury as a result of the crash.

The jury convicted; Schlais appeals.

The evidence was sufficient to support Schlais's conviction for driving under the influence

On appeal, Schlais argues that there was insufficient evidence that he was intoxicated when he crashed his four-wheeler. Schlais points out that he could have appeared sluggish at the crash site because he suffered a concussion and that he could have subsequently gotten drunk at home — after the crash but before the police officer arrived to investigate.

Schlais's argument depends upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him. But in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views "the evidence (and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict."

Viewed in that light, there was sufficient evidence that Schlais was intoxicated when he crashed his four-wheeler. Schlais argues that we should credit his testimony that he became drunk at his home after the crash. But "when we rule on a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not weigh the credibility of witnesses[.]" A reasonable jury could discount Schlais's testimony, credit the testimony of the State's witnesses, and convict Schlais of driving under the influence.

Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.