State of Maine v. Douglas E. Belhumeur , 2015 Me. LEXIS 163 ( 2015 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2015 ME 150Docket: Pen-14-484
Argued: October 6, 2015
Decided: November 24, 2015
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
HUMPHREY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
DOUGLAS E. BELHUMEUR
GORMAN, J.
[¶1] Douglas E. Belhumeur appeals from a judgment of conviction for
operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A), (C)(1)
(2014), entered in the Unified Criminal Docket (Bangor) after a jury trial.
Belhumeur challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury
could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
See State v. Lowden, 2014 ME 29, ¶ 3, 87 A.3d 694. For at least two hours on the
evening of November 17, 2013, Belhumeur’s car was stationary on a side street
near the casino in Bangor. Throughout that period of time, Belhumeur was alone
2
inside the car, the car engine was running, and the headlights were on.
During those hours, the engine of the car “revved” almost continuously.
The officer who responded to a complaint about the revving car saw Belhumeur
asleep or unconscious in the driver’s seat, slouching toward the center of the
vehicle. Belhumeur’s left hand rested on a half-full can of “Natty Daddy” beer
between his legs; his right hand rested on his right leg. A second, empty beer can
was on the floor behind the front seats.
[¶3] By yelling and knocking on the car window, the officer was able to
rouse Belhumeur, who responded by reaching for the steering wheel. Fearing that
Belhumeur would try to drive away, the officer asked him to get out of the car.
When Belhumeur did not respond, the officer opened the door and, noticing a
strong odor of alcohol, again asked Belhumeur to get out. Belhumeur did not
respond, so the officer reached in and turned off the ignition. The officer then
asked Belhumeur a third time to get out of the car. Belhumeur instead reached for
the keys, which were still in the ignition. Believing that Belhumeur was trying to
restart the engine, the officer took the keys out of the ignition.
[¶4] When he finally got out of the car, Belhumeur nearly fell and, when he
attempted several field sobriety tests, he was unable to follow the officer’s
instructions. At trial, the State introduced into evidence a video depicting
Belhumeur’s performance on the field sobriety tests. In addition, the officer
3
testified that Belhumeur had admitted to having drunk “two beers,” and
acknowledged that he was somewhat impaired by the alcohol.
[¶5] The State charged Belhumeur by complaint with operating under the
influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A), (C)(1). He pleaded not guilty
to the charge. At trial, the parties stipulated that Belhumeur was under the
influence of alcohol when he was arrested and that he refused to submit to a
blood-alcohol-content test at the request of a law enforcement officer. After the
jury returned a guilty verdict, the court (Lucy, J.) entered a judgment on the verdict
and sentenced Belhumeur to four days in jail, an $800 fine, and a ninety-day
license suspension. Belhumeur appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶6] Belhumeur argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to
support his conviction for operating under the influence. When a criminal
defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State in determining whether the fact-finder could
rationally have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Jones, 2012 ME 88, ¶ 7, 46 A.3d 1125. “As the fact-finder, the jury is
permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.”
State v. Haag, 2012 ME 94, ¶ 17, 48 A.3d 207. The same standard applies whether
4
that evidence is direct or circumstantial. State v. Kenney, 534 A.2d 681, 682
(Me. 1987).
[¶7] For the jury to find Belhumeur guilty of operating under the influence
as charged, the State had the burden to prove that he “[o]perate[d] a motor vehicle
. . . [w]hile under the influence of intoxicants” and that he “failed to submit to a
test at the request of a law enforcement officer.” 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A),
(C)(1). As defined by statute, “‘[o]perating,’ in any form, means operating or
attempting to operate a motor vehicle.”1 29-A M.R.S. § 2401(6) (2014). To prove
attempted operation, “the State must prove that the defendant took a substantial
step toward the operation of a motor vehicle with the intent to operate that
vehicle.” State v. Deschenes, 2001 ME 136, ¶ 9, 780 A.2d 295.
[¶8] Belhumeur’s sole contention on appeal is that no rational jury could
find that he operated or attempted to operate his vehicle. We disagree. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, we cannot
conclude that no rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Belhumeur, while impaired, either drove his car to its resting place or attempted to
1
Pursuant to the Criminal Code, a person commits attempt when, “acting with the kind of culpability
required for the commission of the crime, and with the intent to complete the commission of the crime,
the person engages in conduct that in fact constitutes a substantial step toward its commission.”
17-A M.R.S. § 152(1) (2014). “The provisions of [the Criminal Code defining attempt apply] to crimes
defined outside [the Criminal Code], unless the context of the statute defining the crime clearly requires
otherwise.” 17-A M.R.S. § 6(1) (2014).
5
drive his car after the officer woke him up. See Deschenes, 2001 ME 136, ¶ 10,
780 A.2d 295; State v. Rossignol, 654 A.2d 1297, 1299 (Me. 1995); Kenney,
534 A.2d at 682.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
Jeffrey C. Toothaker, Esq., Ellsworth, for appellant Douglas E.
Belhumeur
R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Susan J. Pope,
Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee
State of Maine
At oral argument:
Jeffrey C. Toothaker, Esq., for appellant Douglas E. Belhumeur
Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee State of Maine
Penobscot Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-13-4423
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY