The flaw in the defendant's argument is that the acquittal of OUI does not preclude consideration of impairment in determining guilt of negligent operation. See Commonwealth v. Woods, 414 Mass. 343, 350 (1993) (prosecution need not show that the defendant was intoxicated to prove consumption of alcohol contributed to negligent operation of a motor vehicle). In this case, the defendant admitted to ingesting Klonopin prior to the crash. In addition, the defendant had a blue powdery substance around her lips and tongue, which was consistent with mixing Klonopin with a liquid and drinking it, or crushing it and ingesting it. While neither the evidence of the defendant's ingestion of Klonopin nor the fact of the accident may be sufficient to prove negligent operation on its own, the Klonopin ingestion in conjunction with the circumstances surrounding the accident permitted the judge to reasonably infer negligence. Id. ("Evidence that the defendant was consuming alcohol prior to driving with passengers late at night is patently relevant to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care while driving"). Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.5