The defendant, Candice Hodge, appeals her conviction on two charges of driving while intoxicated. See RSA 285:82 (2004). She argues that the State failed to establish that she was driving under the influence of a controlled drug at the time of the offenses. We affirm.
To prevail on her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003). To convict a person under RSA 265:82, the State must prove some impairment.
State v. Taylor , 132 N.H. 314, 316 (1989).
In this case, the record contains admissions by the defendant that she had taken Oxycodone, a controlled drug, before driving. The record also includes evidence that supports a finding that she was impaired. That the defendant also admitted taking a noncontrolled drug does not nullify her admission that she was driving while under the influence of a controlled drug; nor does it require additional evidence establishing the cause of her impairment.
See State v. Finch , 733 So.2d 716, 721-23 (La.App. Ct. 1999); see also State v. Taylor , 132 N.H. at 318 (supreme court will not construe statute to produce illogical result).
DUGGAN, GALWAY and HICKS, JJ., ...