 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pulliam v. State4/8/2003
he office as well as the signature of one attesting the truth of their contents. The certificates may therefore be considered self-authenticating pursuant to M.R.E. 902(1).
3. Peremptory verdict of acquittal
. Pulliam challenges the evidence. The governing standard for our review of sufficiency challenges is whether, taking all evidence and inferences in favor of the State, no reasonable, fair-minded juror could find an accused guilty. Brooks v. State, 695 So. 2d 593, 594 (Miss. 1997).
. We have already detailed the evidence. There is some argument that the results of the intoxilyzer test were within the margin of error. No evidence of the margin of error, if any, of the testing procedures was offered and thus we cannot review that claim. The admissibility of the calibration evidence satisfied the need to prove the accuracy of the intoxilyzer. There was sufficient evidence on each element of this offense.
. In addition, Pulliam requests a new trial, saying that allowing this verdict to stand would be an "unconscionable injustice." Groseclose v. State, 440 So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983). The evidence argues otherwise. No new trial is needed.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF DUI FIRST OFFENSE AND SENTENCE OF $500 FINE IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
|