Baker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KM-01654-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KM-01654-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: First offense DUI - Nonajudication - AlcoSensor test - Section 63-11-30(3) - Section 63-11-19 - Intoxilyzer test - Blood alcohol content Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Motoin for Nonadjudication Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-09-2010 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: AFFIRMED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY’S RULING THAT APPELLANT WAS INELIGIBLE FOR NONADJUDICATION District Attorney: Susan V. Happ |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jilinda Baker |
PATRICIA F. DUNMORE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | First offense DUI - Nonajudication - AlcoSensor test - Section 63-11-30(3) - Section 63-11-19 - Intoxilyzer test - Blood alcohol content |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jilinda Baker was charged with first-offense driving under the influence. Baker’s motion for nonajudication was granted by the justice court. The Department of Public Safety determined that she was ineligible for nonajudication of the offense because her failure to submit a proper breath sample for the Intoxilyzer 8000 test was considered a refusal to take the test. The circuit court agreed that nonadjudication was not proper. Baker appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Baker argues that the Department of Public Safety improperly ruled that nonadjudication was unavailable to a minor who refused the Intoxilyzer 8000 test but tested .05% on the field AlcoSensor test. Under section 63-11-30(3)(a) & (g), a court has discretion to nonajudicate a minor’s DUI only when there is evidence that his or her blood alcohol content is more than .02% and less than .08%. Baker argues the field AlcoSensor test registering a .05% blood alcohol content is sufficient for her to qualify for nonadjudication under section 63-11-30(3)(a). Section 63-11-19 explicitly states the only valid methods to determine a person’s blood alcohol content are the “methods approved by the State Crime Laboratory.” In the Crime Laboratory’s manual, the regulations indicate that the two models of the Intoxilyzer are “the only acceptable evidentiary instruments for use in breath alcohol testing in the State of Mississippi.” Baker did not submit a sufficient sample for the Intoxilyzer 8000 test. She was informed that failure to provide a sufficient sample would be deemed a refusal of the test. Under the Zero Tolerance for Minors Act, the court has discretion to rule the first DUI offense nonadjudicated; however, the minor must have a blood alcohol content level between .02% and .08%. The field AlcoSensor test is insufficient evidence of Baker’s blood alcohol content for nonajudication. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
