The appellant, William Peters, appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.
The appeal centered on the trial judge's alleged misapprehension of evidence regarding the reliability and credibility of a key civilian witness.
The appellant argued that inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, including details about the vehicle, her property ownership, her level of impairment, and animosity towards the appellant, rendered the verdict unreasonable.
The court found these alleged inconsistencies to be minor or irrelevant, concluding that it was open to the trial judge to accept the witness's testimony.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that any misapprehension of evidence must demonstrably influence the trial judge's reasoning process to warrant setting aside a judgment.