Brooks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00978-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00978-COA ; 2007-CT-00978-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony DUI - Weight of evidence - Jury instruction Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-30-2007 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND TO PAY A FINE OF $2,000 District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 901-05 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOE LOUIS BROOKS A/K/A JOE LEWIS BROOKS A/K/A JOE L. BROOKS |
LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | Felony DUI - Weight of evidence - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joe Brooks was convicted of felony driving under the influence. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Brooks argues that the only evidence presented that he was under the influence of alcohol was testimony by an officer that his speech was slurred and difficult to understand and that he had poor balance and that the testimony of the other two officers that his eyes were red and that he smelled of alcohol is insufficient to show that he was under the influence or was impaired in any way. The jury was free to accept or reject all or some of the testimony given. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Jury instruction Brooks argues that the trial judge should have granted his proposed jury instruction regarding the legality of drinking and driving, because it was the only instruction presenting his theory of the case. Brooks was not entitled to the jury instruction because there is no evidentiary basis for the instruction. Brooks did not testify at trial that he had not consumed enough alcohol to be considered under the influence; he denied in his testimony that he had consumed any alcohol on the day of his arrest. And an instruction which was given was clear that to be guilty, Brooks had not only to consume the beverage, but also to be under the influence of it. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
