 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Briggs11/4/2003
ubmitting to a breath test. As a result, he asserts that the result of his breath test should be suppressed.
Once again, this Court has specifically addressed Briggs' argument, and rejected it. In both State v. Simmons , 2000 MT 329, 303 Mont. 60, 15 P.3d 408, and City of Missoula v. Fergunson , 2001 MT 69, 305 Mont. 36, 22 P.3d 198, this Court concluded that Montana's advisory provided sufficiently accurate information to a person as to the ramifications of a refusal to submit to testing. We stated in Simmons , "The purpose of the Implied Consent Advisory is to inform an apparently intoxicated driver of the potentially serious consequences of refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test and of his due process protections such as rights to independent testing and post-testing hearings." Simmons , 17. As in Simmons , the purpose of the advisory was accomplished here. The holdings in Simmons and Fergunson control this case. The District Court did not err in denying Briggs' motion to suppress.
Lastly, Briggs contends that even with the results of the breath test in evidence, there was still insufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under § 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA, it is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public. Briggs asserts that testimony regarding the amount of alcohol he consumed that evening and his performance on the field sobriety tests should have led the court to conclude that reasonable doubt existed. In fact, the District Court did express skepticism that drinking approximately one-third of a bottle of wine, with dinner, and one and one-half beers after dinner would result in a .133 breathalyzer score. However, the court subsequently concluded, "beyond a reasonable doubt [that] there was more alcohol consumed than has been admitted to here in the testimony." The court based its conclusion upon the following evidence:
the opinion of the arresting officer, who administered the field sobriety tests, that Briggs was intoxicated;
testimony that Briggs smelled of alcohol and his eyes were bloodshot;
both of Briggs' HGN tests resulted in scores of six out of six indicating intoxication;
Briggs' breathalyzer result of .133; and
shortly after leaving the bar, Briggs, while driving, had an automobile accident.
We conclude that this is ample evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
JAMES C. NELSON
JIM REGNIER
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
JIM RICE
|