behavior after the accident was due to intoxication and not due to trauma from the accident. Appellant directs us to Officer Trusler’s cross-examination testimony in which the officer testified he was unsure what types of behavioral and neurological problems might be exhibited by someone who had recently been involved in an accident as opposed to someone who was intoxicated. Section 577.010 sets out in pertinent part that “[a] person commits the crime of [DWI] if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” “[A] person is in an ‘intoxicated condition’ when he is under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or drug, or any combination thereof.” § 577.001.2. “ ‘Intox requested sobriety tests. See State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Officer Trusler testified at
holding evidence sufficient when appellant exhibited signs of possible intoxication failed field sobriety tests and had blood alcohol level in excess of legal limit holding that a refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible as evidence of intoxication holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding statistical conclusions admissible and questions regarding the size of a tests database goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence