Turner v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00184-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00184-COA ; 2007-CT-00184-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-30-2008
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: DUI manslaughter - Admission of blood test - Jury instructions
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving and Barnes, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2007
Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court
Judge: Marcus D. Gordon
Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, DUI MANSLAUGHTER, AND SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION; COUNT II, DUI MANSLAUGHTER, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan
Case Number: 06-CR-042-LE-G

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JUSTIN BRENT TURNER




JOHN M. COLETTE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

    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 manslaughter - Admission of blood test - Jury instructions

    Summary of the Facts: Justin Turner was convicted on two counts of driving under the influence manslaughter. He was sentenced on Count I to twenty-five years with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. On Count II, Turner was sentenced to ten years with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Blood test Turner argues that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his blood-alcohol level into evidence because Turner was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; the unconstitutional seizure was not cured; and Turner’s consent was not voluntarily given. An individual is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away. Turner was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he initially made the statement as to his involvement in the collision and his alcohol consumption prior to the accident. In a non-custodial setting where interrogation is investigatory in nature (general on-the-scene investigation), Miranda warnings are not required in order that a defendant’s statements be admissible. When the deputy arrived on the scene of the accident, he observed a burning vehicle containing two possibly deceased individuals, a second damaged vehicle, and Turner and an unidentified female watching from afar. Smelling alcohol coming from Turner, the deputy asked about Turner’s involvement and possible alcohol consumption. When Turner disclosed his involvement and amount of alcohol consumption, Turner was not placed under arrest or detained. However, the deputy requested that Turner submit to a blood test to determine his blood-alcohol content. Turner agreed. Although Turner was never handcuffed, advised of his rights, or told that he was under arrest, he was placed in the back of a patrol car unable to open the door of his own free will. When Turner informed the deputy of his involvement in the accident and consented to give a blood sample, he was not seized at the time. Turner argues that his consent at the hospital to draw a blood sample to determine his blood-alcohol level was not voluntary. Turner’s acknowledgment of his involvement in the accident, his admission to having consumed alcohol prior to the accident, and the smell of alcohol on his person gave the deputy reasonable grounds to believe that Turner was involved in the accident that resulted in the death of two individuals. These factors gave the deputy the authority to obtain a blood sample for testing Turner’s blood-alcohol level. Turner’s assertion that his alleged consent to a blood sample did not cure the unconstitutional seizure is moot. Issue 2: Jury instructions Turner argues that he was denied a fair trial because the jury was not properly instructed. When reading the instructions as a whole, it becomes clear that the jury was properly instructed.


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