Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00681-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00681-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-13-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated driving under the influence - Weight of evidence - Proof of intoxication - Replacement of juror - Jury instruction Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-04-2005 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH THREE YEARS TO SERVE, AND FIVE YEARS’ POST RELEASE SUPERVISION AND PAY A FINE OF $1,000. District Attorney: G. GILMORE MARTIN Case Number: 04,0064-CRP |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RANDALL M. SMITH |
DAN ANDERSON MCINTOSH
TRAVIS T. VANCE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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: | Aggravated driving under the influence - Weight of evidence - Proof of intoxication - Replacement of juror - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Randall Smith was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor for his involvement in a vehicular accident which seriously injured the driver and passenger of an oncoming car. He was sentenced to ten years, with three years to serve and five years of post release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Smith argues that the jury’s verdict finding him negligent and intoxicated at the time of the accident was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. He points out inconsistencies in the different accounts given by one of the accident victims of how the accident occurred. He also points to three eyewitnesses who all testified consistently with his version of how the accident occurred. While there were some discrepancies among the victim’s various accounts of the accident, she consistently asserted that it was Smith who was initially in the wrong lane of travel as she approached the area where the accident occurred. Furthermore, there were many circumstances surrounding the testimony of Smith’s three eyewitnesses that may have created doubt in the jury’s minds as to the veracity of their testimony. The fact that Smith produced corroborating witnesses does not preclude the jury from disregarding the testimony of those witnesses. The victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish that Smith was negligent, and that his negligence proximately caused the accident at issue. Issue 2: Proof of intoxication Smith argues that proof of intoxication, above Mississippi’s legal limit, at the time of the accident, was not proven. At trial, Smith stipulated to the fact that his BAC was .20 at the time his blood was drawn and tested. According to the record, Smith qualified this stipulation only insofar as this was not a stipulation to his BAC at the time of the accident. Since Smith did not raise this issue before the trial court, he is procedurally barred from raising it now on appeal. In addition, the record clearly demonstrates that Smith accepted the accuracy of the test results. Smith did not refute the accuracy, propriety, or timeliness of the blood test results at trial, and he may not do so for the first time on appeal. The testimony of the witnesses, all of whom encountered Smith at the accident scene shortly after the collision occurred, support the conclusion that Smith was intoxicated at the time of the accident. All three of these witnesses testified that Smith smelled very strongly of alcohol and to his abnormal behavior. Issue 3: Replacement of juror Smith argues that the court abused its discretion when, prior to deliberations, the court replaced a regular juror with an alternate. Although trial courts have complete discretion in replacing a regular juror with an alternate, this discretion should not be arbitrarily exercised. An aggrieved party must demonstrate actual prejudice by the trial court’s decision. In this case, the juror had been late to court on two occasions, had received mental treatment in the past, had been seen sleeping in the jury box, and had been seen taking notes completely out of sync with the presentation of testimony. In addition, the juror had been involved in a criminal case. In light of the reasons articulated by the trial judge, the judge did not abuse discretion in replacing the regular juror with the alternate. Issue 4: Jury instruction Smith argues that the court erred in refusing to grant one of his instructions. The instruction was properly denied because it incorrectly states the negligence standard of the applicable statute, placing a burden upon the State not required by section 63-11-30(5). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
