Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01058-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI third offense - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : MYERS, P.J. Dissent Joined By : CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2005 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: DUI, THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE OF $2,000. District Attorney: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN Case Number: 05-CR-004-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MICHAEL MEAN SMITH |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 third offense - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Smith was found guilty of felony driving under the influence, third offense. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Smith argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that this was the third time Smith had been convicted of a DUI within five years. Evidence of both the date the offense was committed, normally the date of the arrest, and that the arrest/offense resulted in a conviction are necessary to sustain a conviction under section 63-11-30(2)(c). The State introduced an abstract of a conviction on March 10, 2000, for an offense which occurred on February 2, 2000. Since the offense which Smith is currently appealing occurred on November 27, 2004, the February 2, 2000 offense clearly occurred within five years of the charge that he was on trial for as required by the statute. For the second DUI conviction, the State entered into evidence a judgment dated September 3, 2002, convicting Smith of a DUI. Smith is correct that the judgment does not contain the date of when the offense occurred. Thus, the State failed to introduce evidence that the conviction under this judgment occurred within five years of the offense for which Smith was on trial. The State offered no further evidence of the date on which the second DUI offense occurred. Evidence of only the conviction, which does not also contain the date the offense was committed, is not sufficient to prove that the offense was committed within five years of the third offense. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Smith argues he was denied a fair trial since evidence was introduced of prior bad acts, i.e., evidence of the prior DUI convictions during the guilt phase of the trial. Since the State is required to prove all the essential elements of the crime charged, it was not unfair prejudice to present evidence of prior DUI convictions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
