The Fifth District rejects an argument that an OVI conviction should be overturned for assertions that impairment could be explained by childhood brain injury, a severe back injury, prostate cancer, the airbag went off in defendant's face, that flashing lights impaired ability to complete HGN, and Klonopin was taken after the accident.
January 7, 2016
Huskey's care struck another that was stopped at a red light. Upon testimony of two deputies, Huskey was ultimately convicted of an OVI. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Fifth District first reviewed that it must uphold the conviction if (a) after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt unless (b) in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury `clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.'
The Fifth District reviewed that testimony by one deputy that they concluded Huskey was intoxicated because (a) of the collision on a clear night and clear roadway; (b) Huskey spent his time on his phone immediately after the accident; (c) there was a strong odor of alcohol on Huskey's breath; (d) Huskey admitted to consuming alcohol; (e) Huskey had glassy eyes, slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet, and fumbled to get his driver's license out.attempted to do the eye test; and inability to follow instructions during the HGN test.
Huskey testified that his behavior was due to a childhood brain injury, a severe back injury, and prostate cancer, that the airbag went off in his face. Huskey also claimed he could not complete the HGN due to flashing lights and said he took a Klonopin after the accident.
The Fifth District concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict that, "The jury chose to believe the testimony of those witnesses rather than the testimony of appellant." Therefore, the conviction was affirmed.