 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Henley v. State10/5/2004
testified that "[t]his is my permit to conduct breath analysis on the Intoxilyzer 5000." Officer Clark was then subject to cross-examination on any and all matters concerning his knowledge and experience with the machine. Accordingly, the trial court properly admitted the permit into evidence, and the State proved that Officer Clark was certified to perform the breath test in compliance with Section 63-11-19. We, therefore, find no merit with this issue.
II.
OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
7. In his second assignment of error, Henley briefly discusses a variety of *92 instances in the course of the trial where the court was presented with conflicting testimony, alluding to the fact that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. A prerequisite to raising an issue on appeal, however, is to properly preserve the issue for appellate review. As we have often stated, this Court cannot hold a trial judge in error on a matter with which he was not presented for decision. Cooper v. Lawson, 264 So.2d 890, 891 (Miss.1972). As a result, Henley is procedurally barred from raising the issue for the first time on appeal, so we find this issue to be without merit.
8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMITE COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF SPEEDING AND FIRST-OFFENSE DUI AND ORDER TO PAY FINES OF $498.00 IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
Page 1 2 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|