 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Knight v. City of Aberdeen9/7/2004
breath sample for analysis by an Intoxilyzer machine.
9. Knight was charged with driving under the influence, first offense and, as previously noted, was first convicted of the charge in the Municipal Court of Aberdeen. He was also convicted in a de nova bench trial by the Circuit Court of Monroe County, leading to this appeal.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
10. Knight argues that the Circuit Court of Monroe County should have dismissed the DUI charge against him because the City of Aberdeen failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
11. In challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, the standard of review requires that the evidence be considered in the light most favorable to the City and that all credible evidence consistent with Knight's guilt be accepted as true. McRee v. State, 732 So.2d 246, 249( 9) (Miss.1999). In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, an appellate court must review all of the evidence in the light most consistent with the lower court's ruling. See Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 85( 10) (Miss.2001). The prosecution is given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Id. "If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge are required." Mangum v. State, 762 So.2d 337, 341( 11) (Miss.2000).
12. Knight cites Richbourg v. State, 744 So.2d 352 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), for his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. However, the case is clearly distinguishable.
13. In Richbourg, the defendant was making a trip from Kansas City, Missouri to Panama City, Florida and had an accident, in Monroe County, Mississippi, with another vehicle. Id. at 353-54( 2). Several hours before the accident, the defendant had stopped in St. Louis for lunch and had one beer. Id. at 354( 3). A highway patrol officer arrived at the scene of the accident and observed some ruptured cans of beer in the trunk of the defendant's vehicle and smelled alcohol on the person of the defendant. [FN1] Id. Based on these perceptions, the patrol officer conducted a horizontal gauge nystagmus (HGN) test on the defendant, and thereafter, based on the results of the HGN test, asked the defendant to blow into the officer's portable alcosensor. Id. at ( 4). The defendant refused to comply. As a result of his refusal to comply, the defendant was transported to the county jail. Id. At the jail, the defendant refused to submit to an Intoxilyzer test. As a result, he was charged with driving under the influence and was convicted in two inferior courts. Id.
FN1. The impact of the two vehicles apparently caused a forty-five pound dumbbell, which the defendant kept in the trunk, to rupture the cans of beer.
14. On appeal, we reversed and rendered the lower courts' decisions. Id. at 357( 16). We pointed out that the arresting officer admitted that he did not witness *929 the defendant driving the vehicle, that the smell of alcohol in and of itself did not indicate how much alcohol the defendant had consumed, that the officer did not administer any tests to the defendant, other than the HGN test, to determine intoxication, and that the officer did not observe the defendant stumble or stagger around. We also noted that the officer did not observe any slurring of speech by the defendant and that the defendant was not argumentative with the officer. Id. at 356( 10).
15. Unlike Richbourg, there was strong evidence in this case that Knight was driving under the influence of alcohol. We see no need to recount the facts here. It is sufficient to say that, based on the facts as recited earlier
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|