 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davies v. State2/19/2003
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from a DWI-conviction in Faulkner County. On appeal, appellant's sole argument consists of his claim that the trial court erred in finding him guilty after previously granting his motion for directed verdict. We affirm.
This case came on appeal before the Faulkner County Circuit Court as a bench trial. At the close of the prosecution's case, appellant moved for a directed verdict. In support of his motion, he argued that the police officer lacked probable cause to gain lawful access to appellant on private property where he was sitting in a truck. The trial court rejected that argument and denied the motion for a directed verdict on that specific basis-and appellant chose not to argue that point on appeal. However, in a second prong of his motion for a directed verdict, appellant claimed that he could not be guilty of driving while intoxicated because he was on private property at the time of the offense. After a discussion between counsel and the court, the court then stated:
hile Mr. Davies was found in the driver's seat, with the car running, on private property, what I'm going to find is for the appellant. I'm going to-for the directed verdict is what I'm going to find. So, I'm finding for your motion, that being on private property-."
However, before the court could conclude its remarks, the prosecutor interrupted, asking for a chance to submit case law making it clear that being on private or public property has no bearing on whether a person is guilty of driving while intoxicated. In response, the trial court agreed to consider case law submitted to it by the prosecution and stated that it would "withhold decision" until it received the case law. In the meantime, the trial court invited appellant to go ahead and present his evidence and that it would "hold" ruling on the directed-verdict motion. Appellant's counsel did not object and proceeded.
At the end of appellant's case, the trial court asked the parties to submit case law in support of their arguments on the pending motion for a directed verdict. Again, appellant did not object to the court's request or its decision to defer ruling. Fifteen days later, the court reconvened and found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated, concluding that under Arkansas case law it was irrelevant that appellant was on private property at the time. Appellant did not renew his motion for a directed verdict at any time, nor otherwise object. From the conviction and sentence of a $325 fine and one day's confinement against credit of one day, this appeal arose. Conviction After a Postponed Directed Verdict Ruling
Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it found him guilty of driving while intoxicated because previously, the court had allegedly granted a motion for directed verdict. Thus, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We review questions of law de novo. Bramucci v. State, 76 Ark. App. 8, 62 S.W.3d 10 (2001). At the outset, we note that appellant never objected to the trial court's decision to delay final ruling on the motion for directed verdict. As such, it is questionable whether appellant even properly preserved his issue for review because Arkansas law requires that an appellant must have made a contemporaneous objection in the proceedings below to have a claim considered on appeal. Halford v. State, 342 Ark. 80, 27 S.W.3d 346 (2000). Instead, appellant alleges that the trial court actually granted his motion for a directed verdict-which it clearly did not. The prosecutor interrupted the trial judge while he was about to rule on the motion from the bench. In response, the
Page 1 2 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|