is a ‘physical condition’ usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.’ ” State v. Teaster, 962 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo.App.1998) (quoting State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Mo.App.1986)). As such, “[i]ntoxication may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe the defendant’s physical condition, and intoxication is usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurred speech, lack of body coordination and impaired motor reflexes.” State v. Scholl, 114 S.W.3d 304, 307 (Mo.App.2003). “When properly qualified by professional background and experience, a law enforcement officer who has had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused may testify as an expert w (Mo.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Further, Appellant refused to fully perform
holding that circumstantial evidence may support temporal link between defendants intoxication and his driving holding that financial disincentives on speech burden first amendment rights for purposes of the pickering balance holding that bloodshot and watery eyes slurred speech and the smell of alcohol on ones breath are indicia of intoxication holding that indicia of intoxication include defendants swaying poor balance slow and slurred speech and strong odor of intoxicants on defendants breath recognizing such balance of interests