Beecham v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00251-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00251-COA ; 2009-KA-00251-COA ; 2009-CT-00251-SCT ; 2009-CT-00251-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI causing death - Blood alcohol evidence - Expert testimony - Death certificate - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentence - Accident report Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CAUSING DEATH AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR2007-955-CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jeffrey Dale Beecham |
JOHN D. WATSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | DUI causing death - Blood alcohol evidence - Expert testimony - Death certificate - Photographs - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentence - Accident report |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffrey Beecham was convicted of driving under the influence, causing death. Beecham was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Blood alcohol evidence The trial court admitted Beecham’s blood sample and the results of the toxicology reports into evidence, finding that there was sufficient probable cause at the time of the arrest to order the taking of a blood sample. The smell of alcohol on Beecham at the scene of the accident, coupled with the fact that Beecham was uncooperative with the paramedics, is sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Thus, the court did not err in denying Beecham’s motion to suppress. Issue 2: Expert testimony Beecham argues the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a police officer as an accident-reconstruction expert, because this was the officer’s first accident to reconstruct and he had never been qualified as an expert in court before. A law enforcement officer may, with proper training and experience, qualify as an expert accident reconstructionist. The trial court was of the opinion that the officer had set forth sufficient evidence regarding his proper training. Furthermore, the trial judge reviewed the principles, methods, and application utilized by the officer and found that he was a qualified expert for the purpose of accident reconstruction. There was no error. Issue 3: Death certificate Beecham argues the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of the victim’s death certificate, because it is inadmissible hearsay and a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Although it is true that Beecham objected to the admission of the death certificate, he failed to state specific grounds for his objection, and all matters regarding the objection were conducted at an unrecorded bench conference, thus leaving no record as to why Beecham objected or to why the trial judge admitted the death certificate into evidence. The failure to make a contemporaneous objection operates as a waiver of the issue on appeal. Issue 4: Photographs Beecham argues that photographs of the accident are irrelevant, or, in the alternative, have no probative value. The trial judge found the photographs to be relevant because the State had the burden of proving that the accident in question was in connection to the death of the victim. Furthermore, he found the photographs were relevant in assisting the jury in determining whether or not the victim had her headlights on at the time of the accident. There was no error. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Beecham argues the State was unable to show negligence on his behalf and that the victim was contributorily negligent. According to the accident reconstructionist, Beecham was traveling at 50 mph at the time of impact with the victim’s automobile, thereby exceeding the speed limit by at least 12-15 mph. Further, the officer testified there was no evidence of braking on the part of Beecham. Beecham’s blood-alcohol level was 0.26%, well above the legal limit of 0.08%. Thus, the jury was presented with substantial evidence to support its verdict of guilty. Issue 6: Sentence Beecham argues that the sentence imposed is cruel and unusual in that it is disproportionate to other sentences imposed. As a general rule, a sentence that does not exceed the maximum period allowed by statute will not be disturbed on appeal. In light of the gravity of Beecham's current offense, and his prior predicate offenses (sexual battery and a convicted felon in possession of a firearm), the trial court's imposition of a twenty-five-year sentence does not give rise to an inference of gross disproportionately. Issue 7: Accident report Beecham argues that the admission of the accident report into evidence was a judicial abuse of discretion. Police reports prepared during the investigation of an accident are admissible into evidence. Beecham was allowed to cross-examine the officer regarding conflicting statements from his trial testimony and the report itself. There was no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
