Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed William T. Winstead’s conviction for driving while intoxicated. The court held that challenges to the admission of blood-test results and an equal-protection claim were not preserved for appellate review. It also held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the finding that Winstead was in actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred by admitting the blood-test results after the intoxilyzer test showed a BAC of 0.07.
- Whether Winstead's equal-protection rights were violated because the officer allegedly treated occupants of cars differently from occupants of recreational vehicles in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Winstead was in actual physical control of the vehicle while under the influence.
Holdings
- The challenge to admission of the blood-test results was not preserved because the defendant made no contemporaneous and specific objection when the evidence was offered.
- The equal-protection claim was not preserved because the defendant did not present the constitutional claim to the trial court.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Winstead was in actual physical control of the vehicle before he fell asleep.
Key quotations
“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” (246)
“Because the defendant failed to “bring the constitutional claim to the attention of the trial court, the issue is not preserved for appeal, and we decline to review it.”” (247)
“Given these facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in actual physical control of the car before he fell asleep.” (248)
Factual background
At approximately 3:13 a.m., a police officer found Winstead asleep upright in the driver's seat of a car in a Wal-Mart parking lot with the engine running. Winstead admitted consuming six Bacardi Silvers and testified that he had unlocked the door, entered the driver's seat, pressed the clutch, moved the gear selector to neutral, started the engine, and turned on the heater so he could sleep in the car. An intoxilyzer test showed a BAC of 0.07, while a subsequent blood test showed a BAC of 0.08; both test results were admitted without objection.
Procedural history
The Claremont District Court found Winstead guilty of driving while intoxicated and denied his motion to reconsider. He appealed, challenging admission of the blood-test results, alleging an equal-protection violation based on disparate treatment of cars and recreational vehicles, and arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual physical control of the vehicle. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.