Scott v. City of Booneville


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KM-02094-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-KM-02094-COA ; 2005-CT-02094-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-27-2007
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: DUI - Sufficiency of traffic ticket - Jurisdiction - DUI citation - Probable cause
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2005
Appealed from: PRENTISS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Sharion R. Aycock
Disposition: CONVICTED OF DUI FIRST OFFENSE, IMPROPER EQUIPMENT, MAKING AN IMPROPER TURN, POSSESSION OF BEER IN A DRY COUNTY AND POSSESSION OF WHISKEY IN A DRY COUNTY AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FOUR HOURS WITH TWENTY-FOUR HOURS BEING SUSPENDED CONDITIONED ON THE DEFENDANT PAYING HIS FINES.
Case Number: CR04-207

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: GENE ARNOLD SCOTT




TOMMY DEXTER CADLE, KENNETH EUGENE FLOYD



 

Appellee: CITY OF BOONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM WAYNE SMITH  

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 - Sufficiency of traffic ticket - Jurisdiction - DUI citation - Probable cause

Summary of the Facts: Gene Scott was convicted in municipal court of driving under the influence, improper equipment, making an improper turn, possession of whiskey in a dry county, and possession of beer in a dry county. Scott appealed to circuit court and was again found guilty. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of traffic ticket The prosecution amended the traffic ticket to state the correct date. If an indictment with an incorrect date of the incident is not defective, a traffic ticket which constitutes a sworn affidavit sufficient to charge a defendant in municipal court is not defective either. Accordingly, the traffic ticket was sufficient to put Scott on notice that the DUI charge was for the night of June 15, 2004. Issue 2: Jurisdiction Scott argues that the use of outdated traffic tickets deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. The City could not explain how the old ticket had gotten into circulation. The difference in the tickets is that the newer Uniform Traffic Tickets reflect the decrease in the allowable alcohol concentration for operators of noncommercial vehicles. However, this change is irrelevant to Scott’s ticket. The portion of the Uniform Traffic Ticket that applies to Scott’s situation is the part that indicates it is a crime to operate a commercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.04% or more. Since the legislature did not alter the allowable alcohol concentration for operating a commercial vehicle, this portion remains the same on the new tickets as on the old tickets. Issue 3: DUI citation Scott argues that the DUI citation, which contained the incorrect address for the municipal court, did not constitute a sworn affidavit. A discrepancy will not render a traffic ticket ineffective when the defendant was made aware of the violation for which he was charged. Scott does not argue that he lacked notice of the arraignment. The other two citations issued to Scott for simultaneous offenses were current versions and contained the correct address for the Booneville Municipal Court. Not only did the citations put him on notice of the correct address of the court, but he also appeared at the correct courthouse for the arraignment. The traffic ticket contained sufficient information to constitute a sworn affidavit charging Scott with DUI. Issue 4: Probable cause Scott argues that making an improper turn was insufficient probable cause to pull over Scott. The officer had probable cause to stop Scott when he observed Scott make an improper turn. He also had probable cause to make the stop because Scott was driving at night with only one headlight. Either of these alone would be sufficient to make the stop.


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