Stuckey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KM-01589-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KM-01589-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-19-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI first offense - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 63-11-30(1) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-12-2006 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, FIRST OFFENSE, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN THE MONROE COUNTY JAIL, ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS, $1,000 IN FINES, AND ORDERED TO ATTEND THE MISSISSIPPI ALCOHOL SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM AND A VICTIMS IMPACT PANEL District Attorney: Monroe County Prosecutor Don Baker BAKER Case Number: CR06-234 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RICHARD STUCKEY |
MOSE LEE SUDDUTH |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 first offense - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 63-11-30(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Stuckey was convicted of driving under the influence, first offense, in justice court. He appealed his conviction to circuit court which affirmed the conviction. Stuckey appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stuckey argues that, pursuant to section 63-11-30(1), the circuit court should have granted his motion to dismiss because the State failed to prove the statutory requirements of driving under the influence. Stuckey argues that the State did not present evidence that the officer actually witnessed Stuckey operating his vehicle while he was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. 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. It is a reasonable inference from the evidence presented that Stuckey had driven the car in violation of section 63-11-30. The officer testified that he watched Stuckey exit the vehicle from the driver’s side; that he smelled alcoholic beverages; and that Stuckey displayed signs of intoxication, such as his slurred speech and unsteadiness on his feet. With the results of the Intoxilyzer and Stuckey’s behavior witnessed by the officer, which were admitted into evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty. Stuckey also argues that there was no evidence presented to prove that the officer had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. Stuckey’s attorney stipulated to the results of the Intoxilyzer test and failed to object to the introduction of the evidence regarding the vehicle stop or evidence concerning Stuckey’s signs of intoxication. Therefore, this issued is waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
