Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10303.
June 23, 2010.
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Bethel, Dennis P. Cummings, Judge, Trial Court No. 4BE-07-1711 CR.
David Reineke, Assistance Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
A J Barkis, Assistant District Attorney, Bethel, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Jesse Frank w as convicted of driving while under the influence. He appeals, contending that because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, District Court Judge Dennis P. Cummings erred when he denied Frank's motion for a judgment of acquittal. For the reasons set out here, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Discussion
AS 28.35.030(a).
In reviewing the denial of a motion to acquit, this court must determine whether there is "such relevant evidence which is adequate to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that there was no reasonable doubt as to [the defendant's] guilt." In making this determination, this court "consider[s] only those facts in the record most favorable to the prosecution and such reasonable inferences as a jury may have drawn from them."
Dorman v. State, 622 P.2d 448, 453 (Alaska 1981) (alteration in original).
Id. (quoting Martin v. City of Fairbanks, 456 P.2d 462, 464 (Alaska 1969)).
In this case, the facts in the record most favorable to the prosecution show that Village Public Safety Officer Wassillie Galila stopped Frank as he drove his snow machine in the village of Tuntutuliak. When Galila approached Frank, he smelled the "fresh odor of alcohol" on Frank's breath. Galila conducted an initial horizontal gaze nystagmus test soon after he stopped Frank. This test involves observation of the suspect's pupil as it follows a moving object. Frank failed the test, but it was dark and Galila believed that he had conducted the test incorrectly by doing it in the light provided by his flashlight. Consequently, later on, after he and Frank were in the Public Safety Office, he conducted the test again.
See State v. Grier, 791 P.2d 627, 629 (Alaska App. 1990) (describing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test).
During this second test, Frank's eyes again exhibited nystagmus on all six decision points. Galila then had Frank perform the one-legged stand test and had him count backwards from 64 to 54. Frank failed these two tests. Frank also had bloodshot and watery eyes. Galila concluded that Frank was under the influence.
Galila was assisted that evening by a Village Police Officer, Wassillie Lupie. Lupie testified that he smelled the odor of alcohol coming from Frank when they arrived at the public safety building.
Frank points out that there was evidence contravening the evidence that the State introduced to prove that Frank was under the influence. But we are "obliged to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to upholding the lower court's verdict." That means we must assess the sufficiency of the evidence by first resolving all conflicts and doubts presented by the evidence in favor of the jury's verdict, and then asking whether, viewing the evidence in that light, a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that the State's case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
Id.
When we view the evidence in this manner, we conclude that the jury could find that the State had proven Frank's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that Judge Cummings did not err when he denied the motion for acquittal.
Conclusion
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.