Ivy v. City of Louisville
| Docket Number: | 2007-KM-00077-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Misdemeanor - DUI - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 63-11-30(1) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-08-2006 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: DUI FIRST OFFENSE - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN JAIL District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2006-0051-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SAMUEL HEATH IVY |
STEPHANIE L. MALLETTE |
|
|
| Appellee: | CITY OF LOUISVILLE | TAYLOR TUCKER | ||
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: | Misdemeanor - DUI - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 63-11-30(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Samuel Ivy was convicted in the City of Louisville Municipal Court of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Ivy appealed his conviction to circuit court which found Ivy guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ivy argues that the direct conflict between his testimony and the officers’ testimony means the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he was impaired within the meaning of state law especially given the acute absence of any objective measure of his blood alcohol concentration. Ivy’s argument is flawed. Section 63-11-30(1) distinguishes between driving under the influence and driving with an alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths percent or more for persons who are above the legal age. Thus, a defendant can be charged and convicted for driving under the influence by the testimony of a witness, who observed the defendant exhibiting signs of intoxication, or by the results of an intoxilyzer test. The circuit judge was presented with conflicting testimony, and the court’s determination was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Ivy also argues that the officers should have informed him that he had the right to obtain his own blood test in support of his defense. However, this is not the law in Mississippi. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
