 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. City of Alma11/13/2002
icer. The officer testified that the women appeared at the police station at 12:50 a.m. on September 1, delivered appellant's keys, and told him that there was a person passed out in the roadway. The officer went to the location given by the two women, and observed appellant behind the wheel of his car, in a "comatose" state, with a strong odor of vomit and intoxicants emanating from the vehicle. He woke appellant with difficulty, determined that he was intoxicated, arrested him, and transported him to the police station. There, a breathalyzer test was conducted at 2:18 a.m. that indicated that appellant's blood alcohol level was .156%. Despite appellant's argument that no time frame was provided, the fact-finder could conclude that all of the pertinent events happened within the span of a single hour, based on the testimony that appellant was observed driving erratically on September 1 and that, before one hour of that day had passed, the police officer found him behind the wheel, passed out, smelling of intoxicants and vomit. We hold that appellant's conviction is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellant also contends that the testimony of Brandy Jones should not be considered. He argues that, because she had a previous, unpleasant romantic involvement with appellant, we should discount her testimony and hold as a matter of law that it lacked credibility. We cannot do so. It was for the trial court to weigh the evidence and resolve the credibility of the witnesses. Kay v. State, 46 Ark. App. 82, 877 S.W.2d 957 (1994).
Affirmed.
Griffen and Neal, JJ., agree.
|