State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.
Robert W. Berghuis was convicted at a jury trial of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a second offense. At the trial, a Calumet County sheriff’s deputy testified that he was dispatched at 1:50 a.m. to investigate after a passerby called 911 upon seeing a truck in a ditch with the motor running and Berghuis, the only occupant of the truck, asleep at the wheel. The passerby woke Berghuis, and he tried to back the truck out of the ditch. (¶ 2).
The deputy arrived within 10 minutes a saw the truck “partially in a field” with the back end “in the ditch line” and the front “either right at the edge of the field or in it.” (¶ 3). The deputy saw that the engine was running and Berghuis was in the driver’s seat.
Berghuis told the deputy that the roads were slick, although the deputy testified it was a dry night. Berghuis admitted he had been drinking and was coming from Shawano. The deputy asked Berghuis for a driver’s license and he produced a debit card. The deputy testified that Berghuis’s eyes were “glossy” and “bloodshot” and he smelled of alcohol. Berghuis failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested. (¶ 5).
Berghuis testified that he intentionally drove the truck into the ditch to work in the field on his farm. He said he had been at a softball game in Shawano, drank two or three beers, and drove into the ditch between 10:15 and 11 p.m. (¶ 5). Berghuis said he remained in the ditch until the deputy arrived at 1:50 a.m. because he did not want to go home due to family problems. He said, after he drove into the ditch, he drank five “pulls” from a bottle of Jack Daniels in his truck and fell asleep. (¶ 6). Berghuis admitted he was drunk when the deputy arrived and said the field in which he was parked was privately owned. (¶ 6).
The jury was instructed that Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) is violated when someone “drives or operates a motor vehicle on a highway while under the influence of an intoxicant.” “Highway” was defined as “all public highways and thoroughfares and bridges on the same . . . including the entire width between the boundary lines of every way open to use of the public as a matter of right for purpose of vehicular traffic.” (¶ 7). Berghuis was found guilty of operating while intoxicated as a second offense, but not guilty of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. (¶ 7).
He argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because the State did not prove that he operated his vehicle while intoxicated on a “highway,” as opposed to the privately owned field. Berghuis cited the deputy’s testimony that the front of the truck was at the edge of the field or in it, which he maintained did not prove he drove intoxicated on a highway because the deputy did not testify how far the truck was off the road.
The Court determined the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict because the State “presented testimony from which the jury could find that Berghuis was ‘operating’ on a highway while under the influence: either that he drove on the road while intoxicated, or his efforts to reverse up the ditch (when he conceded he was drunk) crossed over the boundary of the public road.” (¶ 12).
The Court concluded the jury disbelieved Berghuis’s version of events that he was not intoxicated before he drove off the road and only became intoxicated after deliberately driving into the field. Instead, the jury found that Berghuis operated his truck on a highway – either prior to or after driving into a ditch – while he was impaired by alcohol, which was a reasonable inference the Court was required to adopt on appeal when viewing the evidence most favorably to the State. (¶ 17).