 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bennett6/27/2005
Submitted May 1, 2005
AFFIRMED
Stanley Bennett appeals from his convictions for driving under suspension (DUS), 4th, and habitual traffic offender, arguing the trial judge erred by allowing the admission of his entire driving record into evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
On August 31, 2002, Bennett overturned his sports utility vehicle in a one-car accident on I-26. When the police officer arrived at the scene of the accident, Bennett was already outside of the vehicle and talking to an off-duty emergency services technician who stopped to help. The officer testified that Bennett told him he was the driver of the vehicle, and he was alone in the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, Bennett testified he was not driving the vehicle and prior to the officer's arrival the driver had left the scene of the accident to get help. When the officer asked Bennett for his license, Bennett told the officer it was inside the overturned vehicle. After obtaining Bennett's name and calling the dispatch, the officer discovered that Bennett's license was suspended and the Department of Public Safety (the "Department") had declared him a habitual offender.
During a jury trial on March 20, 2003, Bennett stipulated to jurisdiction in circuit court and objected to the admission of his prior three convictions for DUS. However, the trial judge ruled they were admissible to prove the habitual offender charge, and therefore, there was no prejudice to Bennett. The trial judge also noted that the State did not have to accept Bennett's offer to stipulate to the existence of prior offenses when the existence of the prior offenses was necessary to establish jurisdiction of the circuit court. Bennett objected to the admission of his entire driving record unless it showed only Bennett's three prior convictions for DUS that were necessary to establish jurisdiction, arguing the entire record was unduly prejudicial and not relevant. The trial judge ruled that the statute permits the entire record to be entered into evidence. Thus, at trial, the State introduced letters from the Department stating that Bennett was under suspension for DUS and for being a habitual offender. The State also introduced a certified copy of Bennett's driving record, which listed numerous violations of traffic laws including convictions for driving under the influence , convictions for DUS, and suspensions for failing to take a breathalyzer. Bennett was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to six months in prison for DUS and five years, suspended to three, and three years probation for driving after being declared a habitual offender. Bennett appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In criminal cases, the appellate court reviews errors of law only. State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). "The admission of evidence is left to the discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial judge." State v. James, 355 S.C. 25, 30, 583 S.E.2d 745, 747 (2003).
LAW/ANALYSIS
Bennett argues the trial judge erred by allowing the admission of his entire driving record into evidence during his trial for DUS and driving after the Department had declared him a habitual offender. We disagree.
To prove that Bennett was driving under suspension, the State had to prove that Bennett was operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while his license was suspended. State v. Johnson, 299 S.C. 130, 132, 382 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1989). To establish jurisdiction in the trial court, the State was required to prove that Bennett had two or more prior suspensions. State v. Anderson, 318 S.C. 395,
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|