 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Briggs v. State6/22/1999
test to Briggs. This does not constitute such noncompliance with the statutorily-mandated testing procedures as to require reversal.
. Briggs further argues before this Court, without presenting any scientific evidence to support the proposition at trial, that the test results were distorted by the presence of freon gas on Briggs's clothing since he had been working on repairing an air conditioner on the day he was arrested. Such an argument is, on this record, based upon nothing more than speculation and conjecture and we decline to consider it.
. Briggs also complains that the State did not present evidence of proper calibration of the intoxilizer machine nor any proof "that the methods used in administering the test by the Simpson County Sheriff's office had been tested quarterly." He also claimed that someone other than the arresting officer conducted the test and there was no evidence that this other individual was certified to operate the intoxilizer. . Section 63-11-19 requires that a testing operator be certified by the State Crime Laboratory. The statute also requires periodic tests of the "methods, machines or devices" used to detect blood alcohol content. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 (Rev. 1996). The State presented evidence of periodic calibration of the machine nine days prior to Briggs's arrest and again less than two months after his arrest by a member of the Mississippi Highway Patrol certified in such work. The arresting officer affirmatively testified that he conducted the testing procedure and further said that he was properly certified under the statute by the Crime Laboratory to perform the tests. Thus, Briggs's testimony that someone else actually administered the test created a classic disputed issue of fact for the jury to resolve. Having returned a verdict of guilty, it is fair to conclude that the jury believed the arresting officer and not Briggs. The State laid the proper predicate to gain admission of the intoxilizer test results under Section 63-11-19 of the Mississippi Code. Thus, this sub-issue is without merit.
VI.
The Weight of the Evidence
. Issue VI is a one-sentence attack on the weight of the evidence, which we quote in full: "Driving under the influence was simply not proven in this case and the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence." Such an argument does not legitimately raise an issue for the Court to consider on the merits and we decline to do so.
VII.
Denial of Suppression Motion and Directed Verdict and New Trial Motion . Issue VII is a reiteration of the argument regarding the constitutionality of the roadblock and the admissibility of any evidence gained as a result of Briggs's being stopped at the roadblock without reasonable cause to believe he was intoxicated. The arguments touching on the denial of the motion for directed verdict and the new trial motion are both founded on the proposition that the evidence gained from Briggs's unlawful detention should have been suppressed. Nothing new is raised in this part of the appellant's brief and we determine that our Discussion under Issue II resolves the matter.
VIII.
Improper Closing Argument
. Issue VIII is an attack on the argument made by the prosecution in summation. Briggs charges that certain remarks were so inflammatory and prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial. The prosecuting attorney said,
"And I will submit to you that this is not the first time he's gotten in his car and driven knowing he had a suspended driver's license, knowing . . . ." At that point, defense counsel interrupted with an objection, saying only that the summation was "improp
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|