State v. Kent
1992 WL 381783, 610 So. 2d 265 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence consisting solely of a law enforcement officer's subjective observations of a driver, such as a moderate odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and minor, explainable errors on field sobriety tests, is insufficient to prove guilt for driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt without further evidence of actual driving impairment.
Facts:
- Around 2:00 AM on October 6, 1990, Trooper Wayne Winkler observed Robert M. Kent driving a truck on Interstate-10 with its lights off and at a speed higher than the posted limit.
- After Trooper Winkler initiated a traffic stop, Kent immediately pulled his truck over to the side of the highway without incident.
- Trooper Winkler observed that Kent had a "moderate" odor of alcohol on his person, his speech was unclear, and his eyes appeared bloodshot and red.
- Kent appeared to have some difficulty getting out of his truck and producing his driver's license.
- During a field sobriety test, Kent recited the alphabet from D to Q with only one minor error and accurately counted backward from 36, though he failed to stop at 24 as instructed.
- When directed to touch the tip of his nose with his index fingers while his eyes were closed, Kent instead touched his upper lip.
- Kent refused to perform a one-legged stand test and also refused to submit to an Intoxilyzer test, but he did request a blood test, which was not administered.
- Kent testified that he had been working late, was tired, and had not consumed any alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Robert M. Kent by bill of information with driving while intoxicated.
- A bench trial was conducted in the district court (trial court).
- The trial court judge found Kent guilty as charged and imposed a sentence.
- Kent (defendant-appellant) then applied to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) for a writ of review of his conviction.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ to review the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 State's evidence, consisting only of a trooper's observations and the defendant's performance on a field sobriety test, legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Kliebert, C.J.
No, the evidence presented in this case was not legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To secure a conviction for driving while intoxicated, the state must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the evidence relied solely on the trooper's subjective observations and Kent's performance on field sobriety tests. The court reasoned that Kent's actions, such as difficulty producing his license and minor errors on the tests, could plausibly be attributed to the anxiety and nervousness of a traffic stop rather than intoxication. Crucially, the state presented no evidence that Kent's control over his vehicle was actually impaired; to the contrary, he pulled over immediately and safely. Therefore, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high evidentiary burden the prosecution must meet in a criminal case, particularly for DWI convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It establishes that a conviction cannot rest solely on an officer's subjective interpretation of a driver's behavior and performance on non-scientific field sobriety tests, especially when innocent alternative explanations like nervousness are plausible. The decision serves as a significant check on the sufficiency of evidence in DWI cases, requiring the state to present more concrete proof of impairment rather than relying on ambiguous indicators. For future cases, it means prosecutors may need stronger evidence, such as erratic driving patterns or more substantial failures on sobriety tests, to secure a conviction without chemical test results.
