Sufficiency of the evidence; OWI-3rd; MCL 257.625; Third-degree fleeing & eluding a police officer; MCL 750.479a(3)(c); Operator of the motor vehicle

The court held that the evidence supported “a conviction based upon the theory that defendant was ‘under the influence of’ alcohol’ when he was driving and the record contained sufficient evidence to support his conviction for third-degree fleeing and eluding. He asserted there was “insufficient evidence to prove that his ability to drive was substantially affected by his consumption of alcohol because the police did not see him swerving, weaving, or crossing the center lane. Evidence that a defendant’s vehicle was swerving or weaving is not required to sustain an OWI conviction.” Also, other “evidence, such as an admission of drinking alcohol or an officer’s observation of a defendant smelling of alcohol, can establish that a defendant was operating ‘under the influence,’ even when the police did not observe any erratic driving.” In this case, “a partially-consumed bottle of tequila was found in the” vehicle. Further, he admitted he consumed over a fifth of tequila prior to operating his motor vehicle, and he ”smelled of alcohol, as did his vomit.” He only disputed “the second element: whether he was the operator of the motor vehicle just before he was arrested.” Defendant, “despite acknowledging that Deputy [J] testified that he admitted he operated the [vehicle] and he had been drinking, nonetheless contends that there was insufficient evidence that he drove” it. But there were no occupants in the vehicle other than defendant. Also, J testified as to defendant’s drinking a fifth of tequila prior to operating his motor vehicle, and that defendant admitted he“typically starts with a half of a fifth of brandy in the morning and then switches to either vodka or tequila in the afternoon and that is another half of [a] fifth.” Defendant further advised J “that he saw the red and blue patrol lights behind him and heard the sirens while he was driving. [He] admitted that the officers ‘were in pursuit of him,’ and that when he stopped his vehicle, ‘he was going to attempt to run back to his house,’ but when ‘he went to put the vehicle in park, he actually put it in reverse and when he tried to get out of the driver’s side door, he stated it was locked.’ Defendant conceded he intended to run home.” Those admissions, combined with the witness’s “observation of defendant fleeing from the crashed vehicle and [Sergeant M’s] apprehension of defendant, established that” he was, indeed, operating the vehicle. Affirmed.