 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heflin v. State3/1/2002
James Duke Heflin was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of § 32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment; the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on unsupervised probation.
The evidence adduced at trial indicated the following. On the night of October 30, 1997, while on patrol, Montgomery County Sheriff's Deputy Theresa Donohoo observed a vehicle being driven by the appellant Heflin weaving in and out of traffic, passing other vehicles in an unsafe manner, and speeding. Deputy Donohoo executed a traffic stop; when she approached Heflin's vehicle, she smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle and she saw several beer cans on the front passenger-side floorboard of the vehicle. Deputy Donohoo also noticed that Heflin's speech was "somewhat slurred" and that he was unsteady when walking. (R. 73.) After Heflin failed three field-sobriety tests, Deputy Donohoo arrested him for driving under the influence and transported him to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, where an Intoxilyzer 5000 test was administered. The results showed that Heflin had a blood-alcohol level of .14%.
On appeal, Heflin contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 test. He makes three arguments in this regard; we address each in turn.
First, Heflin contends that the Intoxilyzer 5000 results were inadmissible because, he says, there was no evidence establishing the admissibility of those results pursuant to Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). We disagree.
In Seewar v. Town of Summerdale, 601 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), this Court addressed an identical issue and stated:
"'Tests conducted to determine the alcohol ... content in a ... breath sample have been recognized as having attained sufficient scientific acceptance to satisfy the ... Frye test.' [C. Gamble,] McElroy's [Alabama Evidence] § 490.01(2) [(4th ed. 1991)] (footnote omitted). See also § 32-5A-194, Code of Alabama 1975. See, e.g., Mayes v. City of Irondale, 577 So. 2d 556 (Ala. Cr. App. 1990); Stubstad v. City of Orange Beach, 575 So. 2d 1240 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991); Vizzina v. City of Birmingham, 533 So. 2d 652 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987), aff'd, 533 So. 2d 658 (Ala. 1988).
"Because the Intoxilyzer 5000 has been generally accepted as a valid test under § 32-5A-194 and the cases cited above, no Frye predicate is required for the admissibility of its results." 601 So. 2d at 200 (emphasis added).
Contrary to Heflin's contention, the State was not required to lay a Frye predicate for admission of the Intoxilyzer 5000 results.
Second, Heflin contends that the Intoxilyzer 5000 results were inadmissible because, he says, the State did not introduce into evidence the inspection logbook that is kept for each device. Contrary to Heflin's contention, the logbook does not have to be introduced into evidence in order to admit the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 test. In Steiner v. State, 706 So. 2d 1308 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), this Court recognized that the results of an Intoxilyzer 5000 test may be admitted into evidence only if a proper predicate is laid either under Ex parte Mayo, 652 So. 2d 201 (Ala. 1994), or under § 32-5A-194(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975. We noted:
"Under either method of establishing the predicate for the introduction of test results, the State is required to show that the device was in proper working condition when the test was administered. This showing can be made in one of two ways. The officer who performed the inspection of the device can give direct testimony that it was in proper working condition, or the St
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|