Lyle v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KM-02117-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KM-02117-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2008 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: CONVICTION OF DUI, SECOND OFFENSE, AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI second offense - Double jeopardy - Reopening case - Mid-trial continuance Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2007 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Conviction of DUI Second Offense and Sentence of one (1) year in the Leake County Jail and pay a fine of $750.00 and all costs of court. Two (2) months of sentence is suspended and he is placed on probation for said two (2) month period provided that during said two (2) month period he shall enroll in an alcohol and drug program at his expense and a certificate of completion shall be furnished to the Court upon finalization of the program. District Attorney: County Attorney: CARMEN BROWN SANDERS Case Number: 06-CR-001-LE-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARSHALL JERRY LYLE |
JOHN R. McNEAL, JR. |
||
| 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 second offense - Double jeopardy - Reopening case - Mid-trial continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marshall Lyle was charged with second-offense DUI. After the state rested its case, Lyle moved for a directed verdict because the prosecution failed to put on any proof that he had been previously convicted of DUI. The judge allowed the state to reopen its case-in-chief for the purpose of proving Lyle’s previous DUI conviction. The state attempted to prove Lyle’s previous conviction by submitting an uncertified abstract of the prior conviction. Lyle objected to the introduction of this evidence as hearsay. The objection was sustained, but the judge granted the state a continuance to obtain a certified copy of the prior conviction. Eventually, the trial court found Lyle guilty of DUI, second offense. Lyle appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Although the trial judge initially held that Lyle’s prior conviction should be introduced after the parties’ case-in-chief, he corrected his earlier ruling and allowed the state to reopen its case immediately after resting to provide evidence of Lyle’s previous conviction. Jeopardy attaches in criminal proceedings when a jury is selected and sworn. The prosecution is not allowed a second opportunity to supply evidence that it failed to provide during an original proceeding. Trial courts must not allow the state to reopen its case unless there is mere inadvertence or some other compelling circumstance and no substantial prejudice will result. In this case, it appears that the omission of the essential element was due to the trial judge’s misunderstanding of the law. Because this failure was mere inadvertence, it was not a double-jeopardy violation to allow the state to reopen its case and present evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction. With regard to the court’s ordering a recess to afford the state an opportunity to gather evidence of an essential element of the crime, most authorities recognize that because mid-trial continuance or recess does not end a proceeding, it does not expose a defendant to double jeopardy. This rule applies even when a continuance is granted to allow the prosecution to rectify a problem with its evidence. Here, the resumed hearing was simply a continuation of that day’s trial and did not expose Lyle to double jeopardy. The mistake made by the prosecution cannot be characterized as inexcusable, and the brief recess was not unreasonable. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
