Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00225-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Vehicular homicide - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim’s blood test - Circumstantial evidence instructions - Change of venue - Section 99-15-35 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-12-2005 Appealed from: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2004-0243CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LARRY SMITH |
WHITMAN D. MOUNGER,
WANDA TURNER-LEE ABIOTO |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Vehicular homicide - Sufficiency of evidence - Victim’s blood test - Circumstantial evidence instructions - Change of venue - Section 99-15-35 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Smith was convicted of vehicular homicide and was sentenced to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Smith argues the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith drove negligently, which is an essential element of the crime. The State put on evidence that Smith ran a stop sign. An officer testified that Smith was at fault because he either ran the stop sign or he failed to yield. It was undisputed that the victim’s death was a result of the collision with Smith. Smith admitted drinking that night. Officers discovered an open beer can on the floorboard of Smith’s car, and his blood alcohol content was 0.22, almost three times the legal limit. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of vehicular homicide. Issue 2: Victim’s blood test Smith argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the coroner to testify regarding the results of the victim’s blood alcohol test, because the coroner was not qualified as an expert in toxicology. Because the coroner was not qualified as an expert, it was not proper for her to testify as to the results of the blood alcohol test. However, admission of this testimony constituted harmless error. Taking into account the other evidence, it was unimportant in the jury’s deliberations. Issue 3: Circumstantial evidence instructions Smith argues that there was no direct evidence that he was driving in a negligent manner, so the circuit court should have instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence. A circumstantial evidence instruction is necessary only when the State’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. A defendant’s admission to an important element of a crime negates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction. A defendant’s admission that he had been drinking and driving may constitute direct evidence of guilt. Smith admitted he had been drinking on the night of the accident, and officers found an empty beer can in his truck. The results of his blood alcohol test also revealed that he had a 0.22 blood alcohol content. Thus, there was no need for such instructions as the State presented direct evidence of Smith’s guilt. Issue 4: Change of venue Smith argues that the circuit court should have granted his pretrial motion for a change of venue, because the jury was exposed to pretrial publicity regarding the accident. An application for a change of venue must conform strictly to section 99-15-35. Smith’s motion for a change of venue was not made in writing, sworn to by the prisoner, or supported by affidavits from at least two credible persons as required by the statute. In addition, Smith failed to show any actual adverse publicity to warrant a change of venue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
