With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: holding that bloodshot and watery eyes slurred speech and the smell of alcohol on ones breath are indicia of intoxication
B: recognizing that code is speech
C: holding that indicia of intoxication include defendants swaying poor balance slow and slurred speech and strong odor of intoxicants on defendants breath
D: holding that retaliatory discharge based solely on protected speech by ones spouse is actionable under the first amendment
A.