 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MEININGER v. STATE5/23/1997
Stephen Philip Meininger was convicted of violating Ala. Code 1975, § 32-5A-191(a)(1), because he was driving when his blood alcohol level was 0.10% or more. He was sentenced to 15 days in the county jail; his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on unsupervised probation for 24 months. The Court of Criminal Appeals, relying on Curren v. State, 620 So.2d 739 (Ala. 1993), reversed Meininger's conviction, writing and holding as follows:
"The state's evidence tended to show that on the evening of April 8, 1995, [Meininger] was stopped by Alabama State Trooper David Dodgen for driving with an inoperable headlight. Trooper Dodgen testified that when he approached [Meininger's] vehicle to ask to see [Meininger's] driver's license, be smelled alcohol and saw an unopened container of beer on the front seat. He testified that after [Meininger] sat in his police vehicle for several minutes, he had [Meininger] perform some field sobriety tests. Trooper Dodgen testified that [Meininger] was unable to satisfactorily perform the tests.
"Dodgen testified that he then placed [Meininger] under arrest for DUI and transported him to the county jail. . . .
Dodgen testified that [at the jail] he waited 20 minutes and then performed two breathalizer tests on [Meininger]. He testified that the results of the first test showed a 0.155% blood alcohol level and [that] the result of the second test showed a 0.165% blood alcohol level.
". . . .
". . . [Meininger] first contends that the trial court erred by receiving into evidence Trooper Dodgen's testimony regarding [Meininger's] physical condition at the time he was stopped, the results of field sobriety tests, and his opinion of [Meininger's] sobriety. [Meininger] contends that because he was indicted under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), this testimony should not have been received into evidence. . . .
". . . In [Curren v. State, 620 So.2d 739 (Ala. 1993)], the Alabama Supreme Court . . . noted that § 32-5A-191(a)(1) is an 'illegal per se' law, and that the rebuttable presumption of § 32-5A-194(b) — that the defendant was intoxicated if his blood alcohol content was shown to be 0.10% — did not apply to a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1). In that case, this court had held that § 32-5A-194(b) created a rebuttable presumption of intoxication in cases prosecuted under § 32-5A-191(a)(1) and that failure to charge the jury that this presumption was rebuttable 'invaded the province of the jury and amounted to a directed verdict of guilt based upon the results of the blood alcohol test alone.' Curren v. State, 620 So.2d 737, 738 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), rev'd, 620 So.2d 739 (Ala. 1993).
"The Alabama Supreme Court in Curren stated that § 32-5A-191(a)(1) makes driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% a crime without reference to the effect that alcohol has on the driver and that, therefore, intoxication is not an element of the offense. In addition, the Alabama Supreme Court held that while a defendant 'can offer evidence to rebut the State's evidence that his blood alcohol content was 0.10% when he was found driving, or in actual physical control of, a vehicle,' he cannot introduce evidence to rebut the fact that he was intoxicated, because, as the Alabama Supreme Court stated, whether the defendant was intoxicated 'is not relevant to the charge of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% or greater.' Curren, 620 So.2d at 743.
"During [Meininger's] trial, Trooper Dodgen testified concerning his observations of [Meininger's] physical condition at the time he stopped [Meininger], the results of the field sobriety tests he administered
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|