Parkman v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-KM-00723-COA
Linked Case(s): 2011-KM-00723-COA ; 2011-CT-00723-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-19-2012
Opinion Author: Russell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: DUI first offense - Observation period - Certificates of calibration - Right to confrontation
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Fair, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-05-2011
Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court
Judge: John Emfinger
Disposition: CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, FIRST OFFENSE, AND SENTENCED TO FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN THE RANKIN COUNTY JAIL TO BE SUSPENDED IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND TO PAY A $1,000 FINE PLUS COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS, WITH $200 OF SAID FINE TO BE SUSPENDED AND $800 TO BE PAID, AND TWO YEARS OF UNSUPERVISED PROBATION
Case Number: 22540

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Jeffrey Parkman a/k/a Jeffrey D. Parkman




KEVIN DALE CAMP JOHN MICHAEL DUNCAN



 

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: DUI first offense - Observation period - Certificates of calibration - Right to confrontation

Summary of the Facts: Jeffrey Parkman was convicted of driving under the influence, first offense. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Observation period Parkman argues that the officer failed to observe him for twenty continuous minutes prior to administering the Intoxilyzer 8000 test. A twenty-minute observation period is required under the Mississippi Department of Public Safety’s guidelines and the Intoxilyzer 8000 Implied Consent Policies and Procedures manual. The officer stopped Parkman at 5:07 a.m. The officer testified that they were en route to the Brandon Police Department at 5:29 a.m., and the intoxilyzer test that was the basis of Parkman’s DUI charge was given at 5:49 a.m. While the officer did testify that he spoke with the tow-truck driver prior to departing the safety-checkpoint location, an officer is not required to stare at the defendant for the observation to be effective. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Certificates of calibration Parkman argues that the county court erred by allowing the results of the Intoxilyzer 8000 into evidence because the certification of calibration was never introduced into evidence. However, counsel for Parkman moved to exclude the Intoxilyzer 8000 test results from evidence based on the Confrontation Clause – not because the State failed to produce certificates of calibration. A defendant is procedurally barred from raising an objection on appeal that is different than that raised at trial. Issue 3: Right to confrontation Records pertaining to intoxilyzer inspection, maintenance, or calibration are nontestimonial in nature, and thus, their admission into evidence is not violative of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.


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