Pulliam v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KM-00242-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KM-00242-COA ; 2002-CT-00242-SCT ; 2002-CT-00242-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: First offense DUI - Reopening case - Calibration certificates - Authentication - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - M.R.E. 902(1) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-17-2002 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF DUI - FIRST OFFENSE; SENTENCED TO $500 FINE AND COSTS District Attorney: Carmen W. Brown Case Number: 00-CR-0060-LE |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Pulliam |
WILLIAM MITCHELL MORAN
DAN W. DUGGAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | First offense DUI - Reopening case - Calibration certificates - Authentication - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - M.R.E. 902(1) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Pulliam was convicted of his first offense of driving under the influence. He was sentenced to $500. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reopening case Pulliam argues that the court erred in allowing the prosecution to reopen its case to admit evidence of the intoxilyzer's calibration. A trial court has the discretion to reopen a case in its conduct of a trial. A cogent reason must be found to exist which demands reopening in order that justice may be done. Here, the court excluded the evidence on an incorrect ruling regarding hearsay and was correcting the effect of that error. Therefore, there was a cogent reason for reopening. Issue 2: Calibration certificates Pulliam argues that the calibration certificates were inadmissible, because there was no proof of the machine’s accuracy. Evidence of the machine’s accuracy may be from either the testimony of the calibrating officer or the certificate of calibration. The State offered duplicates of the certificates of calibration immediately before and after Pulliam’s test. Although Pulliam also argues that certificates were inadmissible hearsay because they were not properly authenticated, Pulliam actually admitted the self-authenticating nature of the certificates when making his hearsay objection to the introduction of the log book. The certificates are an example of a public record which are admissible under M.R.E. 901(b)(7). The certificates are also self-authenticating pursuant to M.R.E. 902(1), because they bore both the seal of the office as well as the signature of one attesting the truth of their contents. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Pulliam argues that the evidence is insufficient. However, there was sufficient evidence of this offense. The admissibility of the calibration evidence satisfied the need to prove the accuracy of the intoxilyzer. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
