 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gill10/13/2004
h programs.
FN1. State v. Bradley, 99-364, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/99), 746 So.2d 263, 267.
FN2. La.R.S. 14:32.1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing an appeal which alleges that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the Supreme Court enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia. [FN3] We determine whether the any rational trier of fact could conclude that all essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [FN4] The trier of fact **4 weighs the credibility of witnesses; and therefore, we do not second-guess his or her credibility determinations beyond that of the sufficiency standard. [FN5] Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [FN6] For circumstantial evidence to convict, "it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." [FN7]
FN3. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Myers, 02-1296 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/05/03), 839 So.2d 1183, writ denied, 03-0991 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 330.
FN4. State v. Cortez, 96-859 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/96), 687 So.2d 515.
FN5. Id.
FN6. State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984)
FN7. La.R.S. 15:438.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:32.1 define the elements of vehicular homicide as:
A. Vehicular homicide is the killing of a human being caused proximately or caused directly by an offender engaged in the operation of, or in actual physical control of, any motor vehicle ... whether or not the offender had the intent to cause death ... whenever any of the following conditions exists:
(1) The operator is under the influence of alcoholic beverages as determined by chemical tests ...
(2) The operator's blood alcohol concentration is 0.08 percent or more by weight based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood.
Gill alleges that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he was driving the truck when the accident occurred, and (2) that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. After reviewing all the evidence under the Jackson standard, *1275 we conclude that a rational trier of fact could find that Gill crashed the truck while intoxicated.
GILL DROVE THE TRUCK CAUSING THE ACCIDENT
**5 Gill contends that the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove the truck when it was involved in the one vehicle-accident. We do not agree. At trial, a witness testified that after the accident, he crawled out of the driver's side of the vehicle. The witness saw the body of the victim five feet behind the passenger side of the vehicle. Gill's treating physician in the ER testified that Gill told him that he was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. Trooper Rogers' testimony indicates that Gill told him twice that he had not been driving at the time of the accident, but had been driving earlier and had one beer. Rogers testified that he assumed Gill was driving when Gill told him he fell asleep before the accident.
Further, several witnesses testified that the victim never learned how to drive a car, never obtained a driver's license, never drove a car, and never owned a car because of a seizure disorder. Gill produced nothing at trial contravening this evidence. Looking at this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this strong circumstantial evidence negates any reasonable claim by Gill that the victim was driving when the accident occurred.
GILL DROVE THE TRUCK WHILE INTOXICATED
Gill next contends that the state failed to prove that he drove th
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|