Background
On November 5, 2020, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Manchester Police Officer Shannon Murphy observed a vehicle in a Dollar General parking lot with its engine running but not in park. Officer Murphy approached to check on the vehicle’s occupants and investigate suspected illegal window tinting. When Officer Murphy activated her emergency lights, the vehicle—driven by Charles Alcenat—made an illegal left turn out of the parking lot despite a posted “right turn only” sign, striking the curb in the process. Officer Murphy followed as the vehicle continued down Center Street, where it abruptly shifted lanes and parked partially on the sidewalk instead of using available street parking.
Upon approach, Officer Murphy observed the defendant appearing confused and subsequently discovered he had been at a hookah bar. She conducted field sobriety tests, during which she observed distinct and sustained nystagmus in both of the defendant’s eyes during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and the defendant failed to perform the “walk and turn” test to standard. Sergeant Daniel Pilz observed the defendant’s pupils appeared “pinpoint,” suggestive of narcotic use. Officer John Loud detected the smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. When offered the opportunity to submit to a breath or urine test at the police station, the defendant refused by his conduct.
Alcenat was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 14-227a (a)(1). Following a jury trial in August-September 2023, he was convicted and sentenced to six months incarceration (fully suspended) with eighteen months probation and a $500 fine. He appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and improper denial of his motion to suppress.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the OUI conviction under § 14-227a (a)(1). Applying the standard that evidence must support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court found the cumulative force of the evidence overwhelming: the defendant’s erratic driving pattern (failure to stop at stop sign, illegal left turn, striking the curb, abrupt lane shift, parking partially on sidewalk, difficulty placing vehicle in park), his poor performance on field sobriety tests (distinct nystagmus in both eyes, failure on walk and turn test), the smell of alcohol detected by one officer, physical indicators of impairment (pinpoint pupils), and critically, his refusal to submit to a breath or urine test. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that his slurred speech resulted solely from wearing a surgical mask and speaking with a Haitian French-Caribbean accent, finding that the totality of circumstances supported the jury’s verdict.
The court further held that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the police stop. The court found no seizure occurred in the Dollar General parking lot; Officer Murphy’s initial approach was lawful investigation of a suspicious vehicle. The defendant was lawfully seized only after parking on Center Street, at which point Officer Murphy had observed multiple traffic violations providing reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a stop. The court noted that the record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim challenging the patdown search.
On the jury unanimity issue, the court held that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights by declining to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree whether the intoxication was caused by intoxicating liquor, drugs, or both. Since each represents an alternative means of violating § 14-227a (a)(1), the jury was not required to be unanimous as to the specific source of intoxication—only as to guilt under the statute.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial evidence of intoxication—including erratic driving, failed sobriety tests, and refusal to submit to chemical testing—is sufficient to support an OUI conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Multiple traffic violations and erratic driving patterns, when observed together, establish reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying a motor vehicle stop and seizure.
- A jury need not unanimously agree on the specific source of intoxication (alcohol versus drugs) provided they agree unanimously on guilt under the OUI statute.
- An initial police approach to a suspicious vehicle in a parking lot does not constitute a seizure; the defendant’s subsequent erratic operation of that vehicle provides the basis for a lawful stop and detention.
Why It Matters
State v. Alcenat reinforces Connecticut’s evidentiary standard for OUI convictions and provides clear guidance to trial and defense counsel. The decision demonstrates that prosecutors need not present direct evidence of intoxication (such as breathalyzer results) when circumstantial evidence collectively establishes impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. The cumulative approach—combining driving behavior, physical observations by multiple officers, performance on standardized field sobriety tests, and the inference arising from test refusal—creates a powerful evidentiary foundation. This is particularly significant because the defendant’s refusal to submit to chemical testing, rather than undermining the prosecution’s case, actually supported the jury’s inference of guilt.
The decision also clarifies the constitutional boundaries of OUI prosecutions. By holding that jury unanimity is not required as to the specific intoxicant, the court eliminated a potential defense strategy while maintaining the requirement of unanimity as to the charged offense itself. For defense practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of preserving claims at trial; the court declined to review several contentions because they were inadequately briefed or unpreserved, illustrating that appellate review depends critically on proper trial-level procedure.