Debrow v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01064-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01064-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony DUI third - Jury oath - Admission of blood alcohol level Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Michael McPhail Disposition: Conviction of felony driving under the influence and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without the benefit or possibility of parole or early release. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 04-825-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mark Allen Debrow |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 third - Jury oath - Admission of blood alcohol level |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mark Debrow was convicted of felony driving under the influence for a third offense and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury oath Debrow argues that the jury was not properly sworn because the administered oath did not conform to the statutory requirement. Although the trial court administered an oath different than that mandated by the Legislature, Debrow failed to raise a contemporaneous objection. Therefore, the issue is not preserved for appeal. Issue 2: Admission of blood alcohol level Debrow argues that the admission of the results of his blood analysis violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the State provided no foundation for the submission of this evidence. When the results of scientific analysis are admitted into evidence without the testimony of the analyst, such evidence may violate the defendant’s right to confrontation. In the present case, Dr. Karla Walker of Medtox Laboratories was accepted at trial as an expert in toxicology. Although she testified that she worked at Medtox as a certifying scientist, she never stated that she participated in any way in testing the defendant’s blood, or that she participated in the scientific analysis. Accordingly, the court erred in admitting the test results without evidence that Dr. Walker actually performed the test or participated in its analysis. However, because overwhelming evidence was presented to the jury that Debrow was intoxicated, this error was harmless. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
