 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. McCombs3/15/1999
e, but at a bar more than two hours after the accident. Id.
This case shares more similarities with Townsend. In that case, Townsend was at the scene of his wrecked car, smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, and appeared intoxicated. His breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol level of .21 percent. Like Townsend, McCombs was discovered at the scene in an apparent intoxicated state. McCombs smelled of alcohol and failed his breathalyzer. Although the officer in this case did not perform field sobriety tests because of the narrow street and his concern for the injured passengers, he had no doubt that McCombs was impaired and should not have been driving.
The State presented enough circumstantial evidence against McCombs to create an issue of fact for the jury. Although no witness testified to seeing McCombs driving his truck that night, the State offered enough evidence of the corpus delicti independent of McCombs's statements for the trial court to submit the case to the jury.
II. Admission of Statements
McCombs also argues the trial court erred in permitting the State to admit his "confession" before it proved the corpus delicti of DUI. We disagree.
Sergeant Thomasson testified that as he placed McCombs under arrest, McCombs stated that he was the driver and had been drinking, but that mechanical failure caused the accident.
"Proof of corpus delicti is not a prerequisite to the admission of an extra-judicial confession of a defendant." State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 381, 385 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 656, 658 n.2 (1996). Rather, if the State fails to prove the corpus delicti and the sole evidence of guilt is the defendant's confession, then a directed verdict in favor of the defendant is required. Id. Thus, assuming for purposes of this argument that McCombs's statements were a confession and that they were introduced before the State produced proof of the corpus delicti, the timing of the admission was not error.
III. Jury Charge
In his final argument, McCombs challenges the trial court's refusal to give the following jury instruction:
"Where a Defendant is charged with the crime of driving under the influence , the state must produce proof of the corpus delicti aside from any statements that may have been made by the Defendant. The state much prove the actual commission by someone of the particular offense charged and in this case, the state must prove that the "someone" was in fact the defendant."
Unless the state proves to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was in fact driving his motor vehicle and that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs while driving his motor vehicle, then you must find him not guilty.
McCombs's instruction, if given, would require the jury to decide if the State proved the corpus delicti independent of McCombs's statements. Clearly, it is not within a trial court's discretion to send to the jury a case where the corpus delicti is not proven aliunde of the defendant's extra-judicial confession. As such, the issue is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested jury instruction. Thus, McCombs's DUI conviction is
AFFIRMED.
HEARN and HUFF, JJ., concur.
|