¶1dissenting.
¶2I respectfully dissent on the disposition of Count I.
¶3The evidence and inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the state. State v. Spain, 759 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Mo.App.1988). The state may rely on sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish an element of an offense. State v. Helm, 755 S.W.2d 256, 259 (Mo.App.1988).
¶4That Meinders noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Block as he sat in his vehicle just after his arrival in her back yard creates a reasonable inference, coupled with his later state of intoxication, to submit his intoxication at the time of the accident to the fact finder. That Ms. Meinders did not give an incourt opinion of intoxication is not a fatal flaw — there was ample circumstantial evidence and inferences therefrom to support a conviction. State v. Spain, supra, at 875. See also State v. Williams, 752 S.W.2d 454 (Mo.App.1988).
¶5This case differs from State v. Liebhart, 707 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Mo.App.1986), for in Liebhart, there was no evidence as to the time of the accident. Domsch v. Director of Revenue, 767 S.W.2d 121 (Mo.App.1989), does not control since the issue there was probable cause: whether the accident witness had imparted information as to the defendant’s intoxication to the investigating officer who subsequently arrested the defendant for an alcohol offense.
¶6The defendant should not benefit from his leaving the scene, failure to answer his door and the trooper’s taking time to obtain a warrant.
¶7I would affirm the conviction as to Count I and concur with Judge FENNER as to Count II.