 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Modica v. State12/8/2004
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant, Daniel J. Modica, appeals his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident involving injury to a nineteen-year-old woman, her infant child, and a thirteen-year-old boy and for failure to render aid. He raises two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in failing to exclude testimony regarding the consumption of alcohol, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support a judgment of guilt. We find no error and affirm.
The accident giving rise to the charges occurred on April 21, 2002. At trial, testimony was presented that appellant began drinking beer at ten or eleven in the morning with appellant's brother, Joseph Modica, and another individual. When the twelve-pack they were sharing was consumed, the three traveled in tandem in two cars to a bootlegger who sold them beer and gin, which appellant drank until dusk. Appellant drove his wife's car and Joseph drove another.
That evening, appellant and his brother were again traveling in tandem. Appellant, who was twenty-eight-years old at the time, drove three passengers. The three were a nineteen-year-old woman in the front passenger seat, her six-month old infant child who was riding in her lap unrestrained, and a thirteen-year-old boy who was sitting in the back seat of the vehicle. Appellant was racing his brother and estimated his speed to be 125 m.p.h. at one point. However, in speeding around another car, he lost control of the vehicle, skidded across the street, flipped twice, and landed upside down and hit a telephone pole. The baby was thrown from the vehicle and landed nearby on the ground. The young woman had visible, bloody injuries to her neck and leg. A month before trial, more than a year after the accident, she had a medical procedure to remove pieces of glass from her face. The teen-age boy had blood coming from his nose and the officer who examined the vehicle said there was "blood splattered about the passenger seat," as well as blood on the back seat of the vehicle and one of the rear windows. Appellant's brother arrived on the scene shortly after the accident occurred. After his brother arrived, appellant ran across the street to the car. There was testimony that appellant ran across the street to the car to get a cigarette. Further testimony was presented that appellant also said he was hurting and couldn't breathe and wanted his brother to take him and the others to the hospital. However, a bystander pulled up and stated that an ambulance was on the way. Appellant left before the paramedics arrived and never sought medical treatment in Arkansas for any injuries received, although evidence was presented that he sought treatment in Michigan where he headed immediately after the accident.
We address appellant's second argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence first due to double-jeopardy considerations. See Whisenant v. State, 85 Ark. App. 111, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2004). A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220, 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999). The test for such motions is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Peeler v. State, 326 Ark. 423, 932 S.W.2d 312 (1996); Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455, 929 S.W.2d 697 (1996). Circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence, but it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000); Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999) Whether the evidenc
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|