Starkey v. State Starkey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01076-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony DUI - Admission of intoxilyzer test - Constitutionality of section 63-11-41 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2005 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTION OF DUI-3RD OFFENSE. SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FOUR YEARS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ONE YEAR OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION. District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR-2005-134-CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Edward Starkey |
JOHN D. WATSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Admission of intoxilyzer test - Constitutionality of section 63-11-41 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Starkey was convicted of felony DUI and was sentenced to four years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of intoxilyzer test Starkey argues that his refusal to submit to the Intoxilyzer test was erroneously admitted into evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Starkey also argues that section 63-11-41 is unconstitutional. Section 63-11-41 requires a motorist to choose between agreeing to submit to a chemical test, and thereby giving evidence against himself to the State, or refusing to take the test and suffering the consequences of that refusal by having the jury hear that he refused the test. While the consequences of a refusal are admittedly harsh to a defendant facing a DUI trial, a prosecutor’s choice to exploit the defendant’s refusal is not of constitutional dimension. In addition, the admission into evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test no more implicates his right against self-incrimination under Article 3, section 26 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi than it does under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Starkey’s arguments concerning the weight and the legal sufficiency of the evidence are premised upon the absence of blood alcohol or other conclusive scientific evidence of impairment due to intoxication, the lack of accuracy of the field sobriety test results performed during the stop, and the video evidence of Starkey maintaining his balance during the stop. The State's evidence consisted of testimony from two officers who are trained in field sobriety procedures and certified to administer the tests that Starkey received. The State also introduced into evidence two prior sentencing orders in which Starkey had been convicted of separate DUI charges within the five year time period previous to his arrest. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to find Starkey guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
