 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State2/9/1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/28/1997
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DUI FELONY: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 3 YRS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC; 2 YRS SUPERVISED PROBATION & 3 YRS TO SERVE; FINE OF $2,000 TO BE PAID DURING PROBATIONARY PERIOD; DEFENDANT TO UNDERGO MANDATORY DRUG & ALCOHOL TREATMENT
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/09/99
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
. James Smith was convicted of a third offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From this conviction, he perfects his appeal to this Court and argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying his request for a bifurcated trial and (2) in violating his protection against double jeopardy. Finding his arguments without merit, we affirm.
FACTS
. In the early morning hours of July 21, 1996, officers from the Jackson Police Department set up a roadblock in an effort to check for traffic violations. Michael Ivy was one of the officers on duty that night, and according to his testimony at trial, James Smith drove his vehicle through the roadblock without stopping. The officers flashed their lights at him, but Smith continued driving, almost hitting Ivy as he proceeded through the roadblock. Officer Ivy then got in his patrol car and followed Smith until he finally came to a stop approximately a half-mile to a mile from the scene of the roadblock. Officer Ivy testified that during the time he was following Smith, Smith's vehicle ran off the road one time, partially crossed the center line seven times, and even drove in the oncoming traffic lane at one point. When Smith's vehicle finally came to a stop, Officer Ivy approached the car and smelled the odor of alcohol coming from Smith as he was seated in his car. Ivy also noticed that Smith's speech was slurred and that his eyes were dilated, watery, and blood-shot. It was obvious to Officer Ivy that Smith was intoxicated, so he asked Smith to step out of the car. As Smith stepped from his car, Officer Ivy testified that Smith was so off-balance that he had to grab Smith to keep him from falling. Smith then became belligerent and profane. In Officer Ivy's opinion, Smith was "extremely intoxicated." Smith was then transported to the police station where he was offered the chance to take a breathalyzer test. According to the trial testimony, Smith refused to be tested for the presence of alcohol in his system. Smith was subsequently indicted for felony DUI, having previously been convicted of two prior DUI's. The State thereafter presented its case to a jury and obtained a conviction for felony DUI. It is from this conviction that Smith now brings forth his appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING SMITH'S REQUEST FOR A BIFURCATED TRIAL?
. Prior to the commencement of trial in this case, Smith made a motion in limine to prevent evidence of his two prior convictions of DUI from being presented to the jury. Smith claims that he was asking for a bifurcated trial to allow the Judge to evaluate his prior convictions and impose an appropriate enhanced sentence. Smith's contention is that felony DUI trials should be bifurcated due to the prejudicial nature of the underlying misdemeanor convictions. He insists that the probative value of his prior convictions was "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" when analyzed under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403, and therefore, the trial court erred in overruling his motion.
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|