McDonald v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00970-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI maiming - Sufficiency of evidence - Mistrial - Right against self-incrimination Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-16-2009 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: CONVICTED OF DUI MAIMING AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH THIRTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED, SEVEN YEARS TO SERVE, AND TEN YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE FIRST FIVE YEARS REPORTING AND THE REMAINING FIVE YEARS NONREPORTING, AND TO PAY A $2,000 FINE AND RESTITUTION TO SMITH AND THE CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND OF $4,500 AND $3,564.80, RESPECTIVELY District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 705-07 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Greg McDonald |
ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | LAURA HOGAN TEDDER, CHARLES W. MARIS, JR. | ||
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 maiming - Sufficiency of evidence - Mistrial - Right against self-incrimination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Greg McDonald was convicted of DUI Maiming. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence McDonald argues the State’s evidence was too weak and tenuous to substantiate the jury’s verdict; the expert witness was unable to find that McDonald was the proximate cause of the accident; and the State did not prove that the victim was permanently maimed or disabled. Three officers all testified that they smelled alcohol while they were in close proximity to McDonald. Further, several empty beer cans were found on the floorboard of the passenger’s side of McDonald’s truck. Although McDonald’s blood-alcohol content was never determined because the Intoxilyzer test was refused, a deputy testified that McDonald failed the one-legged-stand test and exhibited six out of eight signs of impairment during the walk-and-turn test. Even without results from an Intoxilyzer test, the failure of field sobriety tests, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and glazed eyes amount to evidence of intoxication. The victim testified in detail as to the events leading up to the collision. He stated that: McDonald was driving erratically; as he neared McDonald’s truck, McDonald “gassed it” and turned into the victim’s lane of travel; and the victim attempted to avoid the truck to no avail and collided with the front driver’s side of the truck. The expert’s testimony corroborates the victim’s version of events. This testimony, when accepted as true, establishes that McDonald negligently caused the accident and was the proximate cause of the injuries the victim sustained. During his direct examination, the victim detailed the injuries he received as a result of the accident. The jury’s determination that the victim’s testimony as to his injuries and their lasting effects was of such weight and credibility to find that he was maimed or disfigured as defined by the trial court. Issue 2: Mistrial McDonald argues that two officers impermissibly commented upon McDonald’s exercise of his Miranda rights. Evidence of post-arrest silence is improper because it violates the accused's right against self-incrimination. The trial judge is permitted considerable discretion in determining whether a mistrial is warranted since the judge is best positioned for measuring the prejudicial effect. Although the deputies’ statements constituted impermissible comments on McDonald’s right to silence, the statements did not deprive McDonald of a fair trial or prejudice him in any way. In each instance, the question asked by the prosecution was not designed to elicit from the witness the fact that McDonald had invoked his right to remain silent. The question appears to have been an innocent one. The trial court gave McDonald’s counsel the option of instructing the jury to disregard any comment by the witness that McDonald chose not to answer the officers’ question and then poll the jury to determine if each juror would follow the court’s instructions. Defense counsel declined the court’s invitation. Under the circumstances of this case, any error resulting in unsolicited answers to generic questions is quite harmless. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
