Missouri DUI opinion issued on 4.14.09
On April 14, 2009, the Missouri Court of Appeals filed an opinion in the Missouri DUI case of State v. Richard Allen Edwards.
Mr. Edwards appealed the court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal from his MO DWI arrest.
Defendant’s trial took place on April 25, 2008. The State presented testimony from Ayers. The Defendant chose not to present evidence. Defendant filed motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence and the close of all evidence, both of which the trial court denied. After the jury instructions were read, and during deliberations, the trial court received a note from the jurors asking, “What is a DUI. What is a DWI. Are they both the same. Is it illega[l] to have a drink and th[e]n drive.” After discussing the questions with the parties, the trial court responded, “You must be guided by your recollection of the evidence and the instructions you have been given. No further instruction may be given.” The jury then returned a verdict of guilty of driving while intoxicated. On May 5, 2008, Defendant filed both a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. (emphasis added)
Look at the bolded quote above. This is the most common question that I hear asked by jurors in DUI cases. (As an aside, there are many acronyms for impaired driving, and the initials used typically indicate near identical charges from state to state, but some states chose one acronym, while others don't. Missouri happens to use "DWI" most commonly.) Now look at the answer the judge gave, also in bold. This is a variation of the most typical answer to jury questions in DUI cases.
The question is, is it a fair answer. Under Missouri DWI law it is not illegal per se to have alcohol and get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Let's see what the Missouri Court of Appeals has to say about it.
Here, Defendant fails to adequately brief his third point on appeal. His argument section simply recites the relevant facts, makes a one-sentence conclusory statement, and then briefly argues policy. Glaringly absent from Defendant's argument is any supporting legal authority. We find that Defendant has abandoned this argument, and we decline to review this point on appeal.
Oops, a DUI defendant can't prove a negative. Sorry, appeal denied. Next.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/124552
the field sobriety test is soley based on the opinion of the officer. i do not believe anyone ever passes it.as for the breath test given in the field, whos to say the officer is qualified to administer this test. they have no medical training or degree. i feel it is all up to the officer. if there is no reason to stop someone other than seeing them pull out of a club or bowling alley than it is bogus. the officer allowed my husband to drive 7 plus miles before stopping him. he said my husband swerved. the officer was only 1.5 miles from the county line when he stopped him. the officer also lives in the same county we do and i believe he was on his way home from his shift.