Evans v. State

25 So. 3d 1054 (Miss. 2010) · Supreme Court of Mississippi · January 21, 2010 · No. No. 2007-CT-00443-SCT

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed a DUI-per-se conviction arising from a breath-alcohol test administered more than an hour after the defendant was stopped. The court held that Porter v. State did not bar evidence, including retrograde-extrapolation testimony, offered to show that the defendant's blood-alcohol concentration was below the legal limit when she was driving. The court nevertheless remanded for a new trial because the circuit court had not ruled on the expert witness's qualifications or the reliability of the proposed testimony.

Court
Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the Court
Pierce, Justice; Waller, C.J.; Carlson, P.J.; Randolph, J.; Lamar, J.; Pierce, J.; Chandler, J.; Kitchens, J.
Jurisdiction
Mississippi
Decision date
January 21, 2010
Docket number
No. 2007-CT-00443-SCT
Procedural posture
The State petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision reversing Evans's DUI conviction and remanding for a new trial.
Standard of review
Admission or exclusion of evidence, including expert testimony, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A trial judge's decision stands unless the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous and amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, decided en banc.
Parties
Mary Reed Evans v. State of Mississippi
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

evidenceexpert testimonycriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawevidenceDUIappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Porter v. State barred Evans from presenting evidence concerning alcohol consumption and retrograde extrapolation to show that her BAC was below the legal limit when she was driving in a DUI-per-se prosecution.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that Dr. A.K. Rosenhan was qualified to testify and that his testimony was admissible when the circuit court had not made an initial determination regarding his qualifications or the reliability of his methodology.

Holdings

  1. In a DUI-per-se case, Porter does not bar evidence concerning alcohol consumption when the evidence is offered to establish that the defendant's BAC was below the statutory limit at the time of driving; Porter bars evidence offered to show only that the defendant was not impaired.
  2. The Court of Appeals erred by determining that Dr. Rosenhan was qualified and that his testimony was admissible because the circuit court had not first determined his qualifications or the reliability of his testimony.

Key quotations

However, we do not read Porter as holding that in a DUI-per-se case, evidence regarding the consumption of alcohol cannot be introduced to prove whether or not the defendant was at a certain BAC when she was driving a motor vehicle. (1059-1060)
Since the trial court is vested with the responsibility of making an initial determination, and this was not done, we must disagree with the Court of Appeals on this issue. (1060)
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. (1060)

Factual background

Evans drove after drinking four beers at a restaurant and accepting another beer from a friend. After encountering storm debris and failing to stop when directed by a highway patrol officer, she was stopped, smelled of alcohol, and admitted drinking. Her blood-alcohol test, administered approximately one hour and eight minutes after the stop, registered slightly above the legal limit. She sought to present expert and other evidence that her BAC was below the legal limit when she was driving, based on the timing and absorption of alcohol.

Procedural history

The Monroe County Justice Court convicted Evans of first-offense DUI. On de novo appeal, the Monroe County Circuit Court again found her guilty and granted the State's motion in limine barring defense evidence concerning alcohol consumption and retrograde extrapolation. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Porter v. State was inapplicable and that Dr. Rosenhan was qualified to testify. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment insofar as it reversed and remanded, but rejected the Court of Appeals' determination that Rosenhan was qualified because the circuit court had not made the required threshold determination.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the Monroe County Circuit Court for a new trial consistent with the opinion. The circuit court must make the initial determination regarding Dr. Rosenhan's qualifications and the reliability and admissibility of his proposed testimony under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…