Setzer v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-00752-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-17-2011
Opinion Author: Kitchens, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter by culpable negligence & DUI resulting in permanent injury - Suppression of blood test - Consent
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-07-2009
Appealed from: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
Disposition: At the conclusion of a bench trial (Setzer waived his right to trial by jury) on February 13, 2009, the trial judge found Setzer guilty of two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and guilty of one count of DUI causing death or permanent bodily injury. Setzer was sentenced to serve fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections on count one; fifteen years, suspended, on count two, to run concurrently with the sentence for count one; and ten years’ post-release supervision on count three. Additionally, Setzer was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $100 to the Crime Victims’ Compensation fund, court costs, and $17,512.20 to the Office of the Attorney General.
District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION
Case Number: CR2009-0103CD

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Larry Setzer




T. SWAYZE ALFORD



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, 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: Manslaughter by culpable negligence & DUI resulting in permanent injury - Suppression of blood test - Consent

    Summary of the Facts: Larry Setzer was convicted of two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and one count of driving under the influence, resulting in permanent injury. Setzer was sentenced to fifteen years on count one; fifteen years, suspended, on count two, to run concurrently with the sentence for count one; and ten years’ post-release supervision on count three. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Setzer argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence of the blood test. Setzer maintains that he did not consent to the collection of a blood sample, that the State lacked probable cause to collect the blood sample, and no exigent circumstances were present which would have negated the requirement for a search warrant. Regarding Setzer’s allegation that he had not consented to the blood draw, the trial judge was challenged with determining the credibility and veracity of the witnesses before him. Officer Jones, the officer at the scene of the accident, testified that Setzer twice gave him verbal consent for the blood draw. Windham, the nurse who extracted the blood from Setzer, testified that she did not recall whether Setzer gave consent for the blood draw, but added that she would not have drawn Setzer’s blood at the request of Officer Jones without consent from Setzer. Although Setzer argues that he never signed a consent form, the Court has never held that written consent is required for a blood draw. Therefore, based on the testimony, the trial judge did not err in finding that Setzer had consented to the drawing of a sample of his blood. Further, blood searches which are based upon probable cause are not illegal. In this case, Setzer’s vehicle collided with a stationary vehicle as he approached a traffic signal. Officer Jones had considerable reason to believe that Setzer was intoxicated. Specifically, Officer Jones observed Setzer’s being uncooperative with medical technicians who were attempting to treat him at the scene of the accident, and he testified that Setzer had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. Thus, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.


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