 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis12/28/2000
Defendant Zane Allen Davis was found guilty by a Williamson County jury of violating Tenn. Code Ann. §55-10-401(a)(2), driving a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in the driver's blood or breath was ten- hundredths of one percent (0.10%) or more, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with the sentence suspended after Defendant served thirty days in the County Jail, and a $1250 fine. Defendant raises the following issues in his appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it ruled that the State was not required under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16 to provide Defendant with documentation pertaining to the reliability of his blood alcohol test results; (2) whether the trial court erred when it quashed Defendant's subpoena duces tecum requesting the State's expert to bring documentation, previously ruled undiscoverable under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16, to trial; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State's expert witness to testify without first laying the proper foundation; and (4) whether the trial court erred when it limited Defendant's proof at trial regarding the arresting officer's motive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
Thomas T. Woodall, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which David G. Hayes, J., and Norma McGee Ogle, J., joined.
OPINION
On May 11, 1998, the Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Defendant Zane Allen Davis for driving under the influence ("DUI") of an intoxicant, driving while the alcohol concentration in Defendant's blood or breath was ten-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) or more, driving on a revoked license, second-offense DUI, and second-offense unlawfully driving on a revoked license as a result of prior offense. On November 18, 1999, a Williamson County jury found Defendant guilty of driving with blood alcohol of ten-hundredths of one percent or more, a Class A misdemeanor, and not guilty of driving on a revoked license; the remaining charges were dismissed.
In his motion for a new trial, Defendant claimed that the State suppressed evidence material to the preparation of his defense. Specifically, this evidence consisted of data concerning the reliability of the instrument used to acquire the blood alcohol test results used in evidence against Defendant at trial. This information was requested in a discovery motion and through subpoena duces tecum which were denied and quashed, respectively. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with the sentence to be suspended after Defendant serves thirty days in the County Jail. In addition, the trial court revoked Defendant's license for a period of one year (with application for restricted license available) and required that Defendant attend Alcohol Safety School. Defendant raises the following issues in his appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it ruled that the State was not required under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16 to provide Defendant with documentation pertaining to the reliability of his blood alcohol test; (2) whether the trial court erred when it quashed Defendant's subpoena duces tecum requesting the State's expert to bring documentation previously ruled undiscoverable under Rule 16 to trial; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State's expert witness to testify without first laying the proper foundation; and (4) whether the trial court erred when it limited Defendant's proof regarding the arresting officer's motive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|