State v. Lorton

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed Andrew P. Lorton's DWI conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude all rational conclusions except guilt. The court found that the field sobriety tests were conducted under less-than-ideal conditions, the test results were largely unremarkable, and the defendant's breath-test refusal was insufficiently corroborated to establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holdings

1. The evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Lorton operated his vehicle while impaired, because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude rational innocent explanations for his performance and observed condition.
2. A defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test may support an inference of consciousness of guilt, but the strength of that inference depends on the circumstances and, on these facts, it did not establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lorton was impaired by intoxicating liquor while operating a vehicle.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the field sobriety tests and refusal to submit to a breath test, excluded all rational conclusions except guilt.

Disposition

reversed