 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilkerson v. State11/12/1998
volved in car accidents after they had been drinking alcohol. As a result of the accidents, authorities took each defendant to a neighboring state to receive medical treatment. Subsequently, police officers from the states in which the accidents occurred, extracted blood samples from the defendants and the evidence was used at trial.
. In similar circumstances, courts of other states have held that the fact that evidence had been gathered outside an officer's territorial jurisdiction does not require suppression of the evidence. State v. Locke, 418 A.2d 843 (R.I. 1980) (police officer was justified in transporting a defendant outside the jurisdiction and properly conducted a Breathalyzer test). "The transport of defendant across state lines was merely fortuitous and should not work to clear defendant of the charges." People v. Preston, 563 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (officer lawfully crossed state line to provide Illinois implied consent warning for purpose of obtaining blood test to check blood alcohol level of motorist who had been transported to Iowa hospital); see also State v. Griffiths, 744 P.2d 92 (Idaho 1987) (officer outside territorial limits of his authority could request motorist to submit to blood-alcohol content test in accordance with the Idaho implied consent statute); State v. Torgerson, 453 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. 1990) (Minnesota officer properly arrested and administered sobriety tests to defendant after ambulance personnel had transported defendant to a nearby North Dakota hospital); State v. Steinbrunn, 774 P.2d 55 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989) (defendant, injured in car accident in Washington, transported to Oregon hospital where Washington state trooper arrested him while he lay unconscious and ordered nurse to draw blood samples; held that Washington officer acted lawfully); State v. Stevens, 620 A.2d 789, 795 (Conn. 1993).
. Officer Herring's extraterritorial investigation in Tennessee was necessary in obtaining the requisite evidence needed for a possible DUI conviction. The blood sample evidence was in Tennessee, and Officer Herring had to obtain the evidence in a very limited time. Nothing in § 63-11-8 prohibits the blood samples from being taken in foreign jurisdictions. The fact that Herring took the blood from Wilkerson in another jurisdiction does not detract from the sample's validity. We agree with the authorities here cited. We find no statutory or other basis for precluding this evidence for the reason that the blood sample was taken in Tennessee.
III.
. Wilkerson contends that his request for court appointed expert witnesses should have been granted and that the court was in err for denying the motion before trial, and after the trial. For there to be cause for reversal, "the trial court's denial of expert assistance must be an abuse of discretion 'so egregious as to deny [the defendant] due process and where [the defendant's] trial was thereby rendered fundamentally unfair.'" Hunt v. State, 687 So. 2d 1154, 1161 (Miss. 1996) (quoting Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So. 2d 878, 883 (Miss. 1991)). Mississippi case law states expert assistance should be granted upon a showing of substantial need. Butler v. State, 608 So. 2d 314, 321 (Miss. 1992). "'Undeveloped assertions' of helpfulness to the defense are insufficient to show that need." Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 333 (Miss. 1997). Some factors to be considered in determining if the defendant was denied a fair trial when the court did not appoint a requested expert include (1) the degree of access the defendant has to the state's experts; (2) whether those experts were available for rigorous cross-examination; (3) the lack of prejudice or incompetence by the state's expert. Fisher v.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|