 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buckler3/9/1999
55344: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald L. Buckler, Appellant.
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Hon. Daniel Kellogg
Opinion Summary
Donald Buckler appeals his convictions following jury trial for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 1994. He asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss because (1) the State failed to present substantial evidence of his intoxication, and (2) no witnesses testified that he was intoxicated as required by section 577.037.5(3), RSMo 1994.
AFFIRMED.
Division IV holds:
"1) The arresting officer testified that Mr. Buckler did poorly on four field sobriety tests. Preliminary breath test results indicated that Mr. Buckler was intoxicated. Substantial evidence was presented that Mr. Buckler was intoxicated when he was stopped by the officer."
"(2) The arresting officer testified that he observed Mr. Buckler to be intoxicated. Mr. Buckler admitted at trial that he had consumed 3 or 4 bottles of beer prior to his arrest. This testimony was sufficient evidence under section 577.037.5(3) by which the trier of fact could determine Mr. Buckler's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Breckenridge, P.J., C.J., and Smith, J., concur.
Opinion
Donald Buckler appeals his conviction following jury trial for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 1994. He asserts on appeal two points of error by the trial court. Mr. Buckler argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss at the end of the State's evidence due to the State's failure to present substantial evidence of his intoxication. As his second claim of error, Mr. Buckler charges that the court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the charge of driving while intoxicated because, he asserts, no witnesses testified that he was intoxicated. Witnesses are required by section 577.037.5(3), RSMo 1994, to present evidence of intoxication when the evidence of blood alcohol content is less than the amount identified by statute to constitute presumed intoxication. Thus, Mr. Buckler contends section 577.037.5(3), RSMo 1994, proscribes his conviction for driving while intoxicated where his blood alcohol level was less than .10% and where the evidence did not include "physical observations of witnesses" of his claimed intoxication.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.FACTS Sergeant Tom Meyer, Missouri Highway Patrol, stopped the appellant, Donald Buckler, on February 6, 1997, at approximately 6:30 p.m., for failure to maintain working taillights on the vehicle he was then driving, a routine traffic stop. Sergeant Meyer observed Mr. Buckler's eyes to be watery and bloodshot. Sergeant Meyer also noticed the order of alcohol emanating from Mr. Buckler. Sergeant Meyer had Mr. Buckler perform several field sobriety tests including an ABC test, walk and turn, one leg stand, horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and portable breath test (PBT). From his observations, Sergeant Meyer believed Mr. Buckler to be intoxicated.
Mr. Buckler was placed under arrest and transported to the Highway Patrol Troop Headquarters in St. Joseph, Missouri. While at the Headquarters, Mr. Buckler stated he had been at the Painted Pony Lounge prior to his arrest. He further stated he had drunk one beer while at the bar. Mr. Buckler submitted to a breathalyzer test. Mr. Buckler's blood alcohol level was measured at .094%.
At trial, three witnesses testified on Mr. Buckl
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|