Watson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-00728-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-21-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony DUI - Discovery violation - Admission of evidence - Prior DUIs - Admission of statement Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2001 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: John Kitchens Disposition: GUILTY OF FELONY DUI AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, PROBATION OR OTHER REDUCTION WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED IN PRE-TRIAL DETAINMENT. District Attorney: Rick Mitchell Case Number: 12141 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Rufus Watson a/k/a Rufus Watson, Jr. |
KEVIN DALE CAMP |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Felony DUI - Discovery violation - Admission of evidence - Prior DUIs - Admission of statement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rufus Watson was convicted of felony driving under the influence as an habitual offender. He was sentenced to five years without the possibility of parole, probation or other reduction. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Discovery violation Watson argues that the State committed a discovery violation in failing to provide him with the maintenance records and calibration certificates of the intoxilyzer prior to trial. For a discovery violation to constitute grounds for reversal, it must be shown that the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant which the defendant did not have and could not obtain himself with any reasonable diligence, that the State somehow suppressed the information, and that, had the evidence been disclosed, a different outcome to the case was at least a reasonable possibility. Here, Watson knew of the existence of the intoxilyzer machine's records and could have obtained the records himself with reasonable diligence, the State made no attempt to suppress the records, and there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome of Watson's trial would have been different. Therefore, there are no grounds for reversal. Issue 2: Admission of evidence A whiskey bottle and its contents found underneath the driver's seat of Watson's automobile during an inventory search following his arrest were admitted into evidence over Watson's objection. Watson argues that such admission was error. Because the presence of the whiskey bottle was simply another link in the chain of evidence constituting probable cause for the officer to believe that Watson was intoxicated, the court did not err in admitting the evidence. Watson also argues that the probative value of the bottle was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because it allowed the jury to speculate about the untested contents of the bottle. Because Watson never objected on this ground at trial, the issue is procedurally barred. In addition, the trial court properly balanced the probative value of the whiskey bottle and its contents against the prejudicial effect. Issue 3: Prior DUIs Watson argues that on the basis of Strickland v. State, 784 So. 2d 957 (Miss. 2001), section 61-11-30(8) under which he was indicted is in direct conflict with M.R.E. 404(b) and 403, which prohibit the introduction of prior bad acts, which are only relevant to sentencing, and are only admissible during a separate sentencing phase. The Strickland decision has no precedential value since it is a plurality decision on the point of whether a bifurcated trial is required. Issue 4: Statement An officer testified to a statement that Watson made during the booking process, and Watson argues that he should have been advised of his rights because he was under arrest at the time. A statement which is given freely and voluntarily is admissible in evidence. The statement made by Watson was unsolicited and not in response to any interrogation by anyone. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
