 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. State10/16/2001
s. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 (Supp. 2000). As this Court has noted, "the question of whether evidence may be admitted hinges in the first instance on whether the information is relevant to the matter being tried . . . ." Acklin v. State, 722 So.2d 1264, 1266 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
. In Acklin, the defendant argued that a blood test performed more than two hours after an automobile accident involving death should have been excluded since the test had not been administered according to the procedures set out in the Implied Consent Statute. Id. This Court rejected the defendant's argument, stating that the blood test was admissible because it demonstrated whether the defendant had alcohol in his bloodstream at the time of the accident. Id. In reaching this conclusion, this Court emphasized that "the Mississippi Supreme Court has made it quite clear that matters regarding the admissibility of evidence in a judicial proceeding are to be decided by judicial rather than legislative pronouncement." Id.
. In the case at bar, Murphy contested the issue of intoxication during his opening statement and throughout the trial by drawing out testimony from witnesses concerning Murphy's sober, cooperative demeanor after the accident. At one point Murphy even told Officer Crawford that he had not been drinking the morning of the accident. Therefore, any evidence demonstrating Murphy's blood alcohol content following the accident would have been relevant. As such, the trial court did not err in admitting the results of the first blood alcohol test.
III. IS MURPHY ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF MCDUFF V. STATE?
. Murphy claims that a recent decision from the Mississippi Supreme Court, McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850 (Miss. 2000), requires this Court to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. Murphy contends that under the reasoning in McDuff, the second blood test ordered by the police violated the Fourth Amendment since it was neither consensual nor supported by probable cause. Whether evidence should be admitted is within the trial judge's discretion and this Court will only reverse where an abuse of this discretion causes prejudice to the defendant. McDuff, 763 So.2d at 856 ( ).
. Two blood tests were performed. The first test, performed by Dr. Suber as part of a medical evaluation, revealed a .13% blood alcohol content. As discussed in the last section, the results of this test were admissible as evidence relevant to Murphy's level of intoxication at the time of the accident. The second blood test, ordered by law enforcement, showed that Murphy's blood alcohol content decreased nearly three and one-half hours following the accident. However, any error in the admission of the second blood test would not have prejudiced Murphy because the results of the first test were admissible and were related to the same issue, namely, Murphy's blood alcohol content following the accident.
IV. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED JURY INSTRUCTION D-10?
. Murphy maintains that Instruction D-10 is necessary for the jury to be properly instructed on an essential element of Felony DUI causing the death of another. Instruction D-10 reads:
You are instructed that the phrase "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" is defined as a condition in which intoxicating liquor has so far affected a driver's nervous system, brain, or muscles as to impair, to an appreciable degree, the driver's ability to operate a car.
. The trial court rejected Instruction D-10, stating that "all that is required is over .10% alcohol." Under the statute, Murphy could have been convicted for either having .10% blood alcohol cont
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|