 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robinson1/19/1999
The appellant, Michael Elmore Robinson, appeals as of right the conviction he received in the Rutherford County Circuit Court. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, his third offense, and was fined eleven hundred ($1,100) dollars. The trial court sentenced him to eleven (11) months and twenty nine (29) days, with one hundred and fifty (150) days to be served in the Rutherford County work house, and the remainder to be served on supervised probation. Appellant's driver's license was revoked for a three-year period.
On appeal, the appellant contends that the statutory presumption of intoxication for multiple D.U.I. offenders, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) (Supp. 1995), violated his right to equal protection. We conclude that section 55-10-408(b) does not violate equal protection; however, certain procedures must be implemented to insure that the statute comports with the right to a fair trial. For the reasons provided herein, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
During the early morning hours of July 16, 1995, the appellant was involved in a minor one-car accident in Rutherford County. Deputies from the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department found the appellant asleep in his car while parked against a stop sign on Crescent Road. State Trooper John Albertson testified that he arrived at the scene around 5:00 a.m. and found the appellant sitting in his car with the driver-side door open. Trooper Albertson observed two beer cans inside the vehicle and noticed that the appellant smelled strongly of alcohol. He also noticed that appellant's speech was slurred and that he had difficulty walking.
The appellant admitted to the trooper that he had consumed alcoholic beverages around 1:30 a.m. that morning and had fallen asleep on his way home. Suspecting that the appellant was intoxicated, Trooper Albertson administered four separate field sobriety tests. The appellant was asked to recite the alphabet, count to five on his fingers, stand on one leg, and walk a straight line, heel to toe. Trooper Albertson testified that he gave the appellant several opportunities to perform each task; however, the appellant was unable to complete any of the four. Thereafter, the appellant was placed under arrest and taken to a hospital emergency room for a blood test.
The appellant signed a consent/waiver form and gave a blood sample around 5:30 a.m. Trooper Albertson preserved the sample and shipped it by mail to the T.B.I. Crime Lab where it was analyzed by forensic scientist, Edward L. Kuykendall. Mr. Kuykendall testified that the appellant's blood/alcohol level was 0.13 grams percent at the time the sample was taken.
The State presented the above evidence to establish appellant's guilt on the present D.U.I. offense. At the close of the evidence, the State requested a jury instruction on the statutory presumption of intoxication contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) (Supp. 1995). That instruction is required in cases where the defendant has one or more prior D.U.I. convictions. The trial court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury, but did not make a formal finding on the record of appellant's prior D.U.I. convictions. The trial court granted the State's request and instructed the jury in pertinent part as follows:
"If you find from the proof that the Defendant was found by means of a blood test to have eight-hundredths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, you, the jury, are permitted to infer that the Defendant was under the influence of such intoxicant and that the Defendant's ability to drive was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|