Commonwealth v. Robert Jasse, Appeals Court No. 22-P-0069 

The defendant was convicted of OUI Alcohol after a trial. He argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Insufficient evidence means that no rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the facts in evidence.  This could be because of the credibility of the evidence, but it usually amounts to a matter of law.  Meaning, the facts in evidence don’t reach the level of a crime. 

The prosecution submitted the following evidence: the defendant smelled like a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, had bloodshot eyes, and slurred his speech. During field sobriety tests, he could not walk in a straight line. He primarily focused his argument on the fact that there was no evidence of erratic operation.

The Appeals Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction. The court noted that the evidence did not need to show that the defendant operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner; it simply needed to show that the defendant’s ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by alcohol. This is distinct from the charge of negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  The court can consider evidence of intoxication in determining whether someone operated negligently, however it is not dispositive. 

Basically, you can be intoxicated and still drive in a manner that might not endanger the public, as counterintuitive as that may sound.