Section 5.4 Intoxicated or Drugged Condition

• Library: DWI 2014

In addition to proving that a person charged with DWI “operated a motor vehicle,” the State must prove that the person was, in fact, in an “intoxicated . . . condition.” Section 577.010, RSMo Supp. 2012. The statutory definition of “intoxicated condition” does not require proof of an impaired state, but merely provides that “a person is in an ‘intoxicated condition’ when he is under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or drug, or any combination thereof.” Section 577.001.3, RSMo Supp. 2012. Despite the absence of a clear statutory definition, some courts have described “intoxication” as “a ‘physical condition’ usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.” State v. Teaster, 962 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (citing State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986)); see also State v. Maggard, 906 S.W.2d 845, 849 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995).

In a DWI case, the State is not required to produce results of a chemical test to prove intoxication. Teaster, 962 S.W.2d at 431 (citing Ruark, 720 S.W.2d at 454); State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994). Rather, intoxication can be sufficiently proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe the alleged offender. See:

· State v. Lawson, 84 S.W.3d 170, 172 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002)

· State v. Knifong, 53 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)

· Teaster, 962 S.W.2d at 431 (citing Maggard, 906 S.W.2d at 849)

· McCarty, 875 S.W.2d at 623 (citing State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992))

Normally, a lay witness’s opinion as to intoxication must be preceded, or at least supported, by evidentiary facts of conduct or appearance on which the witness bases the opinion. See:

· State v. Hanway, 973 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)

· State v. Wilson, 846 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) (citing State v. Palmer, 606 S.W.2d 207, 208 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980), and State v. English, 575 S.W.2d 761, 763 (Mo. App. W.D. 1978))

In English, the opinions of young men 19 and 14 years of age that the accused was intoxicated were held admissible in a jury trial for DWI. See English, 575 S.W.2d 761.

Knifong, 53 S.W.3d 188, provides a useful illustration of an appellate court upholding a DWI conviction that was based entirely on witness testimony without any results of chemical tests. In Knifong, the defendant was arrested for and convicted of DWI after she failed several sobriety tests and demonstrated intoxication with belligerent...