The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a vessel with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams.
She argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, made findings of fact not before the court, erred in assessing credibility based on motive, and shifted the burden of proof.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and that no material misapprehension of evidence occurred.
The trial judge reasonably inferred that the defence witnesses' failure to tell police the appellant was not operating the vessel undermined their credibility.
