 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williford12/21/1998
The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, driving under the influence , driving on a revoked license, and leaving the scene of an accident. Following a sentencing hearing, the defendant received an effective sentence of twenty years. The defendant now appeals, raising the following issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress statements on the theory the defendant was in custody but was not read his Miranda warnings?
II. Whether the defendant's due process rights were violated by T.C.A. § 55-10-401, which allows an inference that previous DUI offenders are intoxicated if their blood alcohol content is .08% or higher, whereas it may be inferred that first-time offenders are intoxicated only when their blood alcohol content is .10% or higher?
III. Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that they could infer intoxication by a .08% or higher blood alcohol content, since this instruction reveals to the jury that the defendant has been previously convicted of DUI?
IV. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and leaving the scene of an accident?
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Around 6:50 p.m. on October 10, 1996, Annette Pittman and her young daughter were traveling between forty-five and fifty miles per hour on Bateman Road in Fayette County, headed north toward Highway 57. As Ms. Pittman crested a hill, her young daughter's yell alerted her to a motorbike, without any lighting, driving approximately fifteen miles per hour weaving in the middle of the lane. Two boys in their early teens were riding the motorbike, but neither looked back when Ms. Pittman's headlights illuminated them, even though her car came within five to six feet of hitting them. She followed them at a distance, and when she came to a safe place to pass them, she did.
Approximately fifteen minutes later, at around 7:05 p.m., the defendant was driving his Camaro westbound on Highway 57. The speed the defendant was traveling is unknown. The night was dark and clear, there were no street lights but nothing to obstruct a driver's view, and the pavement was dry. The defendant struck two boys, Ronald Phillip Webb and Brandon Robbins, who were riding a motorbike traveling between fifteen to thirty miles per hour westbound approximately one to three feet inside the pavement's white line. The motorbike became wedged underneath the defendant's car and the boys were thrown fifteen to twenty feet from the road. The collision left no skid marks on the road.
The defendant continued driving. A man driving eastbound on Highway 57 passed the defendant's Camaro after the collision, noticed the motorbike lodged under the Camaro's body, and smelled antifreeze and burning rubber. According to the man, the defendant was traveling at a "normal highway speed, maybe faster" and without any headlights. The record is silent as to whether the defendant's headlights were on at the time of the collision. It is also unknown how fast the defendant was traveling at the time of the collision.
The defendant drove to his mother's house, which was one mile from the scene of the collision. Because the motorbike remained lodged under the Camaro, the motorbike's tire left a mark as it dragged on the road from the point of impact to the defendant's mother's house. At his mother's house, at 7:14 p.m., the defendant called 911. He returned to the scene by 7:55 p.m. driven by a friend in another car; he left his Camaro, with the dir
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|