 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson v. State1/21/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED-1/21/2003
. Rufus Watson appeals a felony driving under the influence as an habitual offender conviction from the Circuit Court of Rankin County. Watson was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole, probation or other reduction. This appeal was perfected following the denial of his post trial motions. Watson makes the following claims of error on the part of the trial court:
I. The trial court erred in not granting a mistrial for the State's failure to timely produce maintenance records for the calibration results of the Intoxilyzer 5000.
II. The trial court erred in allowing the whiskey bottle discovered in the vehicle to be admitted into evidence.
A. The trial court erred by not excluding the whiskey bottle since charge of possession of the whiskey bottle was dismissed.
B. The trial court erred pursuant to M.R.E. 403 by not excluding the whiskey bottle since it was more prejudicial than probative.
III. The court erred in allowing the State to reference the two prior DUIs in front of the Jury as consideration of the felony charge.
Finding no reversible error, this Court affirms his conviction and sentence.
FACTS
. A Rankin County law enforcement officer observed Watson drive the wrong way onto a highway exit ramp and pulled him over. At trial, the officer testified that as Watson exited his vehicle he fell to the ground. The officer testified to other behavior by Watson that included staggering, impaired coordination, slurred speech, and confusion. Other testimony by the officer indicated that Watson had bloodshot eyes and the odor of alcohol on his breath. After Watson failed a field sobriety test, the officer took Watson into custody and transported him to the local sheriff's office where an attempt was made to administer an intoxilyzer test; however, no results were obtained from the test. Watson was then formally charged. The officer testified, over objection from Watson, that during the booking process Watson made the following unsolicited statement, "I blew on the machine for my three other DUIs, but you're going to have to work to prove this one."
. Watson took the stand in his own defense and testified that he did not drive the wrong way onto the exit ramp, did not fall down, did not stagger or slur his speech, was not confused, was not intoxicated, and did not make the statement attributed to him.
DISCUSSION
I. Did the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial for the State's failure to timely produce maintenance records for the calibration results of the Intoxilyzer 5000?
. Watson contends that the State committed a discovery violation in failing to provide him with the maintenance records and calibration certificates of the intoxilyzer prior to trial. Watson's discovery request did not specifically seek the production of these documents but rather sought "everything concerning the test." On cross-examination Watson had questioned the arresting officer about whether the intoxilyzer machine had been examined and certified to be in proper working order. On re-direct the officer produced the maintenance records and calibration certificates and was allowed to give testimony that the machine had been certified to be in proper working order at the time Watson was administered the test.
. Watson claims that he was ambushed by the State's decision to withhold the calibration results until after he had exposed his defense theory that the machines
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|