Commonwealth v. Richerson

Holding

In an appeal considering whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support this defendant’s DUI conviction, and there was no evidence to contradict the testimony of the officer on the scene, or to explain this defendant’s behavior demonstrated on the body camera footage. The Court of Appeals erred in finding a reasonable hypothesis of innocence that did not flow from the evidence in the record. The trial court as factfinder, not the Court of Appeals, was responsible for resolving which inferences reasonably flowed from the entirety of the evidence. Because the evidence in the record was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.