 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ali v. State12/7/2004
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/07/2004
. In a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Desoto County, Mississippi, Omar Mohamed Ali was found guilty of a third offense of felony DUI. Ali was tried in absentia. The trial judge sentenced Ali to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with four years suspended. Ali now appeals on the following issues:
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE TRIAL OF ALI IN ABSENTIA?
II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING IRRELEVANT AND UNDULY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE OF INTOXILYZER TEST RESULTS WHEN THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 63-11-30(1)(a) AND NOT SECTION 63-11-30(1)(c)?
III. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN OVERRULING ALI'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT?
FACTS
. A little past midnight on December 13, 2002, Chris Cline, a patrolman with the Horn Lake Police Department, observed a white GMC Yukon traveling on Highway 302 cross over into the center turn lane four times. Cline pulled the car over and noticed the odor of an intoxicating beverage and bloodshot eyes on the driver. The man driving was Omar Ali, and when asked to get out of the car the patrolman noticed that Ali was unsteady, having to keep his hand on the car to balance himself.
. Ali told Cline he had only consumed a single beer, but Ali failed both field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. At the police, station the officers administered a breath test on Ali using the Intoxilyzer 5000. This test was performed approximately a half hour after the arrest and the result was 0.090%. The legal limit for intoxication is 0.080%.
. The indictment alleged Ali violated Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-11-301(a) by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This was Ali's third offense under this statue after having twice been convicted in Shelby County, Tennessee for DUI. A jury trial was to be held on July 15, 2003. The morning of trial both Ali and his attorney were present at 8:30 a.m. However, there was a trial that was not completed and they were to return that afternoon to begin their trial. Ali did not return that afternoon and his attorney's motion for continuance was denied. Officer Cline was the sole witness in the case since Ali did not have any witnesses testify for the defense and obviously did not testify on his own behalf. The motions for directed verdict and JNOV made by Ali's attorney were denied.
ANALYSIS
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE TRIAL OF THE ALI IN ABSENTIA?
. The trial of Ali was set to begin at 8:30 a.m. on July 15, 2003. Ali was present at that time but the court requested the parties to come back at 1:00 p.m. because a trial was still under way and would be finished by the afternoon. At 1:30 p.m. Ali still was not present and the prosecutor wished to proceed without him. Ali's attorney made a motion for a continuance which was ultimately denied. In the debate over the issue, the parties established that a statement would be given to the jury in the form of a jury instruction regarding Ali's absence. However, at this time, Ali's attorney believed Ali was merely stuck in traffic on the interstate and would appear in court soon. Ali never reappeared in the courtroom.
. There is a long history of precedent for the constitutionality of trial in absentia under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-17-9. See Thomas v. State, 117 Miss. 532, 78 So. 147 (1918); Williams v. State, 103 Miss. 147, 60 So. 73 (1912). There is no support for
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|