DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Smith

10/19/2001

he dispatcher for the Clinton Police Department. According to Johnson, the department's radio dispatch log indicated that Officer Kelley was dispatched to the jail at 12:27 a.m. on February 28, 1998, arrived at the jail at 12:49 a.m., and returned to duty at 12:56 a.m. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion, stating that the test was challenged at the time of the trial. According to the trial court, " his newly discovered evidence is additional accumulated - impeachable - evidence which in this Court's opinion should not be the basis for granting a new trial." The trial court also stated that the information was available to defense counsel before trial.


We conclude that the trial court properly denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on Johnson's affidavit. Although the evidence may have been material to the case, the Defendant failed to show that reasonable diligence was exercised in obtaining the evidence. According to the trial court, the evidence was available to the defense before the trial. Johnson certified that a contemporaneous recording in the log was required by departmental policies and procedures. Moreover, it is unlikely that the new impeaching evidence would have necessarily changed the result of the trial. There was substantial testimony at trial regarding the timing of the test and the observation period. The log sought to be introduced indicated that Officer Kelley arrived at the jail at 12:49 a.m.; however, the test results of the breathalyzer indicated that Kelley administered the test at 12:47 a.m. Thus, this evidence was not so crucial to the issue of the Defendant's guilt or innocence that the admission of the newly discovered impeachment evidence would probably have resulted in an acquittal. See Singleton, 853 S.W.2d at 496; Rogers, 703 S.W.2d at 169.


Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Tennessee DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.