Commonwealth v. Michael J. Wurtzberger

Summary

The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence, even though the van was stationary and its engine was off. The jury could reasonably infer operation from the defendant's position in the driver's seat, the key in the ignition, the radio operating, and his intoxication while the key remained turned. The court therefore affirmed the defendant's convictions.