 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mazza v. Commonwealth8/17/1993
OPINION BY
JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
In this appeal from his bench trial convictions by the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (trial court) for third-offense operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and hit and run for leaving the scene of an automobile accident, Claude Henry Mazza (appellant) contends that the trial court erroneously refused to suppress evidence necessary to support those convictions. In addition, he argues that the trial court erred in ruling that his driving under the influence arrest was not in violation of Code § 19.2-81.
We recite the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). At approximately 3:15 p.m. on January 4, 1991, while driving alone in a pick-up truck, appellant sideswiped a car driven by Claude Wayne Massey. He then struck two other cars, forcing one of them into a ditch. Immediately following the collisions, appellant got out of the truck, leaned against its side, then walked away from the scene without giving his name, address or any other information.
Danville Police Officer Samuel Cousins, the first policeman to arrive at the scene, estimated his time of arrival to be approximately 3:18 p.m. The witnesses told him that the truck driver was a white male with stocky build, dark hair, and wearing a brown jacket and blue jeans. Cousins reported this description to the central dispatcher. Danville Police Officer Todd Brown, who was operating a police vehicle nearby, heard the report and within two or three minutes arrived at the accident scene. He was given the truck driver's description by Cousins. Another witness added that the truck driver had a mustache and had departed into nearby woods.
Brown went toward the woods to which he had been directed and saw a man he knew, who further directed him toward a field that was
enclosed by a barbed wire fence where, within five minutes, appellant was discovered approximately 250 yards from the accident scene. Appellant matched the description Brown had been given by Cousins and the witnesses.
Brown called to appellant to stop. Instead of responding to that request, appellant ran toward the fence, where he became entangled in the barbed wire. While Brown was trying to remove appellant from the barbed wire, appellant dropped a paper bag containing a partially filled bottle of whiskey and a clear plastic bag, with some white powder in it that was proved to be cocaine.
As Brown collected the whiskey and cocaine evidence, appellant became combative and again attempted "to get away." Another police officer arrived at the fence and, to prevent further combativeness or flight, the officers placed handcuffs on appellant. This occurred within ten to fifteen minutes from the time Brown first arrived at the accident scene. Brown told appellant that he was not under arrest but was to be taken back to the scene for identification purposes. As the officers walked appellant toward the police car, Brown noticed that appellant was unsteady on his feet, had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and had bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech.
Before returning to the accident scene, appellant was informed of his Miranda rights. He was then placed in the police car and driven back to the scene of the accident, where the eyewitnesses identified him as the driver of the pick-up truck. The foregoing descri
Page 1 2 3 4 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|