Teaster, 962 S.W.2d at 431. “The State is not required to produce results of a chemical test to prove intoxication.” State v. Wiggins, 841 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Mo.App.1992). It has long been held that “[c]ircumstantial evidence may prove the elements of the offense, [DWI].” Eppenauer, 957 S.W.2d at 503. In the present matter, Officer Trusler testified he detected a strong odor of intoxicants emanating from Appellant’s person; that Appellant’s speech was slurred; that his whole body was swaying in a circular motion; that his eyes were bloodshot; that he failed the HGN test; that Appellant fell over during the HGN test; that there were empty beer bottles in Appellant’s vehicle; and that Appellant admitted to drinking that evening. See State v. England, 92 S.W.3d 335, 342 (Mo.App.2002) (<HOLDING>); Norris v. Dir. of Revenue, 156 S.W.3d 786,
recognizing that code is speech holding that retaliatory discharge based solely on protected speech by ones spouse is actionable under the first amendment 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 holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech