 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JONES v. CITY OF FOREST CITY3/29/1965
Jessie A. Jones was charged by the city of Forrest city with Driving While Intoxicated, Resisting Arrest, and Assaulting an Officer. After being convicted on all counts in the Municipal Court, Jones appealed to the Circuit Court, where he was tried before a jury. The cases were consolidated for trial, and, after bearing the evidence, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, as follows:
Driving while intoxicated - fine of $250.00, 30 days in the county jail, and 1 year's revocation of driver's license;
Resisting arrest - $500.00 fine, and 90 days in the county jail;
Assaulting an officer - $500.00 fine, and 90 days in the county jail.
Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, and it was ordered that the sentences run consecutively. From such judgment comes this appeal.
It is first urged that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the petit jury panel, because of alleged racial discrimination in the selection of jurors in St. Francis County. A large portion of appellant's brief deals with this contention, but since the case must be reversed on other grounds, we see no reason to discuss this particular point.
We think the court committed error in permitting the introduction of evidence concerning a sobriety test administered to appellant. The evidence reflects that Jones was arrested by officers Dave Parkham and Jack Jones, and taken to the city jail. There, according to the officers, he voluntarily agreed to take a sobriety test. This particular test related to ascertaining the alcoholic content in the urine and blood. Officer Jones stated that he took appellant to the bathroom, and handed him a bottle for the purpose of obtaining a urine specimen; that he (the officer) then labeled the bottle, by placing the name, "Jessie Jones," on it, and left it in the bathroom. Officer Jones testified that the bottle was approximately of one-half pint size, "the type they use at the hospital," and the witness stated that no other specimens were in the room when he left. Subsequently, Robert C. Smith, Jr., a laboratory and X-ray technician at Crawley-Cogburn Clinic, was called by someone, and Smith went to the Police Station, picked up a bottle containing a specimen in the bathroom, and there after ran a test which showed 4.4 milligrams of alcohol per CC. According to the explanation given by Smith, the analysis reflected that Jones was drunk and disorderly. Smith's testimony was objected to by appellant
but the objection was overruled. We are of the opinion that this evidence was erroneously admitted, first, because the prosecution is required to establish all necessary links in the chain of evidence, which would clearly identify the urine analyzed as coming from the body of the accused. In State v. Reenstierna (New Hamp.), 140 A.2d 572, Chief Justice Kenison, speaking for the court said:
"* * * The State is required to establish the essential links in the chain of evidence relied on to identify the blood analyzed as being the blood taken from the accused. * * *
"In this case the blood sample taken from the defendant has not been identified with and traced to the analysis made by the State Department of Health. However likely it may be that they are one and the same, the State has failed to prove it."
In People v. Lesinski, 171 NYS 2d 339, two members of the Buffalo Police Department arrested the defendant about 11:15 P.M. A urine sample was taken about 11:40 P.M., and a salt solution was placed in the bottle which the officer witness placed in his pocket. The witness then took the bottle to his home, and placed it beneath a vanity dresser in his bedroom, and next mornin
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|