City of Alexandria v. Webster
1986 La. App. LEXIS 7254, 490 So. 2d 747 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The testimony of a single officer regarding a driver's performance on field sobriety tests may be insufficient to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt if the observed behavioral manifestations are inconclusive and not corroborated by scientific evidence.
Facts:
- On February 16, 1985, around 1:35 a.m., Officer Michael Rennier observed Leon Webster's car slowly drift from the shoulder to the middle turn lane.
- Over the distance of approximately one mile, Webster's car drifted in this manner three times.
- After stopping Webster, Officer Rennier asked him to exit the vehicle, at which point Webster stumbled slightly and fumbled for his driver's license.
- Officer Rennier administered several field sobriety tests, including a heel-to-toe walk, a one-leg stand, and an alphabet recitation, which Webster performed with errors.
- Officer Rennier noted Webster had a moderate odor of alcohol on his breath, fair speech, and was cooperative.
- An intoxilyzer test was administered at the police station, but the results were not introduced as evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Alexandria prosecuted Leon Webster in a trial court for driving while intoxicated.
- Webster filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Webster filed a motion for acquittal, which the trial court also denied.
- Following a trial, Webster was convicted of driving while intoxicated.
- Webster, as appellant, applied to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, to review his conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the testimony of a single police officer regarding a driver's performance on field sobriety tests, without any scientific evidence, sufficient to prove guilt for driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Knoll, J.
No. The testimony of a single police officer regarding a driver's performance on field sobriety tests is not sufficient to prove guilt for driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is inconclusive. The court applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard, which requires that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the only element at issue was whether Webster was under the influence. The court acknowledged that intoxication is an observable condition and scientific evidence is not required for a conviction. However, it found that the objective criteria of the sobriety tests must produce results that establish traits of intoxication. In this case, Officer Rennier's observations of Webster's performance, combined with his description of Webster's speech as 'fair' and his demeanor as 'cooperative,' were deemed 'too weak' and 'inconclusive' to meet the high burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Domengeaux, J.
Yes. The court should have found the officer's testimony sufficient to support the conviction. The dissent agreed with the majority that there was probable cause for the initial traffic stop. However, the dissent argued that the field sobriety test results were sufficient to support the conviction, especially since Webster's intoxication was the likely cause of his weaving on the highway. The dissenting judge contended that reversing the trial court's factual findings amounted to 'second guessing' and that the conviction should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the high evidentiary standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal law, particularly in DWI cases that rely solely on an officer's observations. It establishes that while scientific evidence like a breathalyzer result is not strictly required for a DWI conviction, its absence can make it difficult for the prosecution to succeed if the officer's testimony about field sobriety tests is not compelling or is otherwise ambiguous. The decision emphasizes that a driver's failure on subjective field tests does not automatically equate to legal intoxication and that appellate courts will scrutinize such evidence for sufficiency. This holding serves as a caution to prosecutors relying on non-scientific evidence and reinforces the principle that mere suspicion or inconclusive observations are not enough to sustain a criminal conviction.
Unlock the full brief for City of Alexandria v. Webster