Travis v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-KA-00097-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00097-COA ; 2004-CT-00097-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 05-15-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: DUI homicide - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.E. 701 - Admission of testimony - M.R.E. 602 - Right against self-incrimination
Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ
Dissenting Author : KING, C.J.
Dissent Joined By : LEE, P.J., IRVING AND CHANDLER, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2003
Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: CONVICTION OF DUI HOMICIDE, IN VIOLATION OF MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTIONS 63-11-30 (1)(C) AND 63-11-30 (5) AND SENTENCED TO TWENTYFIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION.
District Attorney: David Byrd Clark
Case Number: 1999-0130

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ADRIAN TRAVIS A/K/A ADRIEN TRAVIS




JULIE ANN EPPS MICHAEL V. WARD



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY  

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: DUI homicide - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.E. 701 - Admission of testimony - M.R.E. 602 - Right against self-incrimination

Summary of the Facts: Adrian Travis was convicted of DUI homicide. He was sentenced to a twenty-five year sentence with fifteen years suspended and ten years to serve. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Travis argues that his conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to find that he actually drove the vehicle registered to another person. A person may be arrested, tried, and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor even if there is no eyewitness presented who viewed the defendant operating the vehicle, provided there is sufficient evidence. The time and location of the collision allowed the jury to form a reasonable inference that Travis drove the car that hit the victim. The jury could have found that Travis’ proximity and his status as the sole non-emergency personnel present indicated his involvement in the collision. The jury could have reasonably inferred that, by needing some degree of medical assistance, Travis had been involved in that accident. The jury certainly could have concluded that Travis was not on foot at that time of the morning in a remote area. A police officer testified that he concluded that Travis was driving based on Travis’s presence, the presence of emergency responders, and common sense. M.R.E. 701 permits this opinion and inference testimony because his testimony was rationally based on the perception of the witness, helpful to the clear understanding of testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. The jury heard ample evidence to form a reasonable and permissible inference that Travis was guilty. While there was no eyewitness testimony that Travis, in fact, drove the car, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict Travis. Issue 2: Admission of testimony The police officer testified that Travis drove the car that collided into the victim. Travis argues that the prosecution failed to establish a foundation and that the testimony was not admissible as a lay opinion. Pursuant to M.R.E. 602, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. As for the admissibility of the officer’s opinion and inference testimony, it is admissible under M.R.E. 701 if it was a rationally based on the perception of the witness, helpful to the clear understanding of testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. The officer’s testimony was based on his personal knowledge. The officer testified that he concluded that Travis was driving based on Travis’s presence, the presence of emergency responders, and common sense. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion. Issue 3: Right against self-incrimination Travis argues that the prosecution improperly argued that, at the scene of the accident and during the investigation that followed, Travis’ failure to state that he did not drive the car at the scene was evidence that Travis actually did drive the car at the scene. When counsel objected to the statements, the circuit court sustained the objection. Counsel for Travis did not request any further relief. Thus, Travis received the exact relief he requested, and there is no reversible error.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court