Sarah Badeaux v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CACR06-108
September 27, 2006
SARAH BADEAUX
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-04-2515-1]
HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
Appellant Sarah Badeaux appeals following her conviction for driving while
intoxicated. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
conviction. Because Badeaux did not preserve this argument for appeal, we affirm.
On June 16, 2004, Badeaux and two girlfriends took her H2 Hummer “mudding.” The
women believed that they were in a creek bed in Falls Creek when, in actuality, they were
in Devil’s Den State Park. Badeaux testified that not long after the women realized that they
were lost, the vehicle sank into the mud. Because her cell phone would not work, Badeaux
called her OnStar system for assistance, and a tow truck was sent. Badeaux testified that after
getting stuck, they decided to drink alcoholic beverages. She stated that no one drank any
alcoholic beverage until after the vehicle was stuck.
After calling for help, Badeaux crawled up an embankment and waited for the tow
truck. Jack Kildow testified that he arrived on the scene with the tow truck and smelled
alcohol on Badeaux’s breath. He agreed to haul her vehicle out of the lake, but he told her
that he would have to get it approved with the park rangers. Kildow contacted Ranger Bruce
and Ranger Becker. Both rangers testified that they arrived on the scene and that they too
smelled alcohol on Badeaux’s breath. Ranger Bruce administered field-sobriety tests on
Badeaux, all of which she failed. She was then escorted to the jail, where she registered a
.102 on a breathalzyer exam.
At trial, the State presented testimony from Kildow, both rangers, and the detective
who administered the breathalyzer exam. Immediately following the State’s presentation of
proof, Badeaux moved for directed verdict arguing that the State had failed to prove a prima
facie case of DWI because there was no evidence of intoxication and actual physical control
of the vehicle. The court ruled that Badeaux was correct that the State had failed to prove
physical control but that there was sufficient evidence to show she was operating the vehicle
while intoxicated to get to a jury. Therefore, the court denied the motion. Badeaux then
presented her defense and rested. She failed to renew her motion for directed verdict.
Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a motion for directed
verdict to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the State’s evidence and
again at the close of all evidence to avoid a waiver. Because Badeaux failed to renew her
motion for directed verdict following her presentation of a defense, her argument is not
preserved for our review on appeal. Fisher v. State, 84 Ark. App. 318, 139 S.W.3d 815
2
(2004). Therefore, her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is waived on appeal, and
we affirm her conviction.
Affirmed.
G RIFFEN and R OAF, JJ., agree.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
