 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blackburn1/28/2004
speeding. Although the police car's roof rack was on during the HGN test, the results of the tests performed are not affected during the daytime. As stated above, defendant had informed Anderson that he could not have performed the field sobriety tests "even if he was dead sober." Defendant "immediately started begging" Deputy Anderson not to arrest him for DWI even before the officer informed him that he was under arrest. According to Deputy Anderson, defendant never refused to take the field sobriety tests, and never said he had any medical problems. While defendant was performing the HGN test he was not facing the lights of the deputy's vehicle and the road was level where the defendant was asked to perform the field sobriety tests.
Kathryn LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk of Court, testified with regard to her duties and established the foundation for the introduction of the defendant's prior convictions for DWI in October 1999 and October 2000. Sergeant Owen McDonnell testified that the fingerprints from the prior bills of information and defendant's known fingerprints were from the same person. The defense presented the testimony of Ruby Blackburn, defendant's mother. She testified that defendant has emphysema and is disabled because of the disease. She said the area of the road where defendant was arrested was "hilly, but not a big hill, you know. But it is an incline, a little."
During closing arguments, the prosecutor and defense counsel recounted incidents from the videotape. While performing the walk-and-turn test, the defendant stated, "I am wobbling" and he was unable to perform the test. As stated above, the defendant admitted, on the tape and after the Miranda warning, that he had drunk "quite a bit" and that he had been drinking as little as 20 minutes before the traffic stop. He admitted having drunk a six-pack over an unspecified period of time. Defendant also said he should not have been driving. Defense counsel noted that, on the videotape, defendant was distressed and repeatedly asked the officer to give him a break -- "that he wouldn't be doing this normally, but he was just trying to do the girl that he was driving with a favor."
We find the record contained ample evidence to support the defendant's conviction. Thus, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements necessary to convict the defendant of DWI, 3rd offense.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
|