DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

Commonwealth v. Smith

3/7/2003

ilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.


On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. Benham, 816 S.W.2d at 187.


We have closely studied the record, the law, and the written arguments, and must conclude that the circuit court erred in ruling that Smith was entitled to a directed verdict. Commonwealth v. Hicks, Ky., 869 S.W.2d 35 (1994) states that a DUI conviction may be upheld based solely on the testimony of the police ("...a conviction may stand upon the testimony of the police without resort to the various [testing] devices." Hicks, 869 S.W.2d at 37). In the matter at bar, Trooper Mullins testified that he believed Smith was intoxicated. In light of Hicks, this evidence, taken alone, is sufficient to overcome Smith's motion.


Clearly, if the testimony of the police is sufficient to sustain a conviction which requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it must also be sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict where only "some evidence" is required. Benham, 816 S.W.2d at 188. Even if the circuit court properly concluded that the HGN test was insufficient to withstand Smith's motions, Hicks indicates that the Trooper's testimony by itself is sufficient. As it is uncontroverted that Trooper Mullins testified that he believed Smith was intoxicated, and since Benham requires the trial court to draw all fair and reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth from this testimony, we must conclude that the district court properly denied the motions for a directed verdict.


For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the Perry Circuit Court, and remand the matter to the Perry District Court for any necessary proceedings consistent with this opinion.


ALL CONCUR.






Page 1 2 

Kentucky DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.