 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Slankard7/23/1999
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jasper County, Hon. William C. Crawford, Circuit Judge
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Shrum, P.J. and Montgomery, J. , concur.
Opinion:
AFFIRMED.
Charles L. Slankard ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment, entered following a jury trial, convicting him of the Class D felony of Driving While Intoxicated, sections 577.010; 577.023, for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years. Defendant raises two points of trial court error, discussed below. We affirm.
Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. "We review the evidence and all permissible inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict and ignore any inferences that do not support a finding of guilt." State v. Ogle, 967 S.W.2d 710 (Mo.App. 1998).
On the afternoon of April 9, 1998, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Officer Charles Brown of the Webb City Police Department received a call on his radio instructing him to look for a black Cadillac with a certain license plate number. Officer Brown spotted the automobile in oncoming traffic and looked at the driver as it passed. Officer Brown testified that Defendant was the driver. He called in the automobile's license plate number and was informed that it was indeed the vehicle that was being searched for. He turned his patrol vehicle around to follow the automobile, pulled in behind it, and turned on his lights. Defendant did not pull over but proceeded on, stopping at two stop signs as he drove. Officer Brown turned on his siren. Defendant continued driving, turned into an alley and then turned into the driveway of a house, whereupon Defendant exited the automobile and attempted to enter the house. Officer Brown parked his patrol vehicle and prevented Defendant from entering the house.
Officer Brown testified that Defendant smelled of intoxicants, Defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred and he was "staggering quite a bit." Defendant attempted to put a "chew" in his mouth but was stopped by Officer Brown, since Officer Brown suspected Defendant was intoxicated and wanted Defendant to perform field sobriety tests and a breath test. Defendant was uncooperative with Officer Brown, attempted again to put a "chew" in his mouth, and then struggled with Officer Brown after Officer Brown knocked the "chew" from Defendant's hand. Officer Brown was able to restrain Defendant and place Defendant in his police vehicle. When they arrived at the police station, Officer Brown had an Officer Maddock help him with the handling of Defendant because Defendant was "still irate and combative." Defendant refused to perform or submit to any field sobriety tests or breath tests, either at the scene or after he arrived at the police station.
In his first point, Defendant claims the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test. Defendant claims that such testimony was inadmissible in that he was not informed that his refusal could be used as evidence against him at trial. In support of his argument, Defendant cites McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.App. 1997), for the proposition that "no refusal is valid if the arresting officer's 'request' omits statutorily necessary information." Id. at 816.
In review of Defendant's initial point, we observe that, " n matters involving the admission of evidence, we review for prejudice, not mere error." State v. Finster, 985 S.W.2d 881, 889 (Mo.App. 1999). Further, " he trial court possesse
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|