 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McDonald v. City Of Aberdeen12/14/2004
s will be related during our discussion of the issues.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES
DUI Charge
7. McDonald argues that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the DUI charge because the City of Aberdeen (City) failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence of an intoxicating substance at the time of his arrest. McDonald claims that he was not intoxicated but instead, had a reaction to medication which caused him to pass out.
8. A motion for a JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). "In appeals from an overruled motion for JNOV[,] the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to the [City]." Id. (citing Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418, 426 (Miss.1992)). "We are authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty." McClain, 625 So.2d at 778 (citing Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)).
9. Here, ample evidence was offered by the City in support of McDonald's DUI conviction. The police officer who responded to the scene testified that he found McDonald slumped over the steering wheel with the motor running and had to beat on McDonald's window several times before waking him. The officer further testified that when McDonald finally woke up, he was disoriented and looked around as if he was lost. Similarly, the officer testified that he could smell a strong odor of alcohol emanating from McDonald and that when McDonald attempted to exit his car, he had to support him because McDonald staggered and almost fell. The officer additionally testified that McDonald was swaying badly, was very incoherent, and did not know his whereabouts. McDonald also admitted, according to Officer Perkins, that he had consumed three beers.
10. Although McDonald argues that he was not intoxicated but had a reaction to medication that he was taking, we emphasize that in a non-jury trial, "[a] [judge] sits as a fact-finder and in resolving factual disputes, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses." Murphy v. Murphy, 631 So.2d 812, 815 (Miss.1994) (citing West v. Brewer, 579 So.2d 1261, 1263-64 (Miss.1991)). Here, the judge, as the trier of fact, was presented with conflicting testimony. He was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.
11. We find that substantial evidence exists in the record to support McDonald's conviction. Accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to the City, the trial judge was justified in finding McDonald guilty. We will now address the City's assignment of errors on cross-appeal.
Possession of Open Container/Improper Stop Charges
*3 12. On cross-appeal, the City argues that it offered sufficient evidence that McDonald was in possession of an open container of beer and that the law does not require that the beer container be offered into evidence or that there be laboratory confirmation of its alcoholic content. The City also argues that the ticket written by the arresting officer sufficiently charged McDonald with improper stopping on a highway in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-3-903 (Rev.2004).
13. At the conclusion of the City's case and again at the conclusion of the defense's case, McDonald moved for a dismissal of the open container charge on the basis that the City had failed to prove its case against him because it failed to prove that he was in possession of a can of beer at the time of his arrest. McDonald also moved for a dismissal of
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|