State of Utah, v. Puerto

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Javier Puerto,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010482-CA

F I L E D
April 11, 2002 2002 UT App 112 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Randall N. Skanchy

Attorneys:
Brenda Viera, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
William Kendall, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.

THORNE, Judge:

Javier Puerto appeals from his conviction for Driving Under the Influence, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44 (1999). We affirm.

Puerto's sole claim on appeal is that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to support his conviction.(1) "We will reverse on this ground '"only when the evidence . . . is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt."'" State v. Mead, 2001 UT 58,¶65, 27 P.3d 1115 (citations omitted) (alteration in original).

Here, the arresting officer testified, inter alia, that upon approaching Puerto he could smell alcohol on Puerto's breath, that Puerto admitted consuming alcohol prior to his encounter with the officer, and that Puerto had a glassy stare and difficulty balancing upon exiting his vehicle. Finally, the officer testified that Puerto failed to properly perform any of the three field sobriety tests the officer administered prior to arresting Puerto and that Puerto refused to comply with the required breathalyzer procedures after initially consenting.

After examining the record, we can see nothing to suggest that the evidence was so "'"sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt."'" Mead, 2001 UT 58 at ¶65 (citations omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm Puerto's conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

1. More specifically, Puerto argues that the evidence presented demonstrated (1) that the arresting officer had improperly performed one of the three field sobriety tests; and (2) that the less than perfect environmental conditions under which Puerto performed the remaining two field sobriety tests rendered the results of those tests invalid. Puerto, however, fails to recognize that under these circumstances these arguments inherently involve credibility determinations and "'"[i]t is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses."'" Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425, 433 (Utah 1998) (quoting State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985) (citation omitted)) (alteration in original); see also State v. Mead, 2001 UT 58,¶67, 27 P.3d 1115 (stating "'It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.'" (Citation omitted)). Accordingly, our analysis focuses exclusively on whether the State presented sufficient evidence to the jury to support Puerto's conviction.