Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

05/24/96 HARRY JONES v. CITY SUMMERDALE *FN1

May 24, 1996

HARRY JONES, JR.
v.
CITY OF SUMMERDALE *FN1



Appeal from Summerdale Municipal Court. (TR-95-0585). Julian Brackin, municipal Judge.

Released for Publication August 16, 1996.

Taylor, Presiding Judge. All The Judges Concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Taylor

TAYLOR, PRESIDING JUDGE

The appellant, Harry Jones, Jr., appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of § 32-5A-191(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. He was fined $500 and was ordered to undergo a substance abuse evaluation. This appeal stems directly from the appellant's bench trial in the municipal court for Summerdale, as provided by Rule 30.2(1), Ala.R.Crim.P. Rule 30.2(1) states:

"An appeal from the district or municipal court shall go directly to the appropriate appellate court:

"(1) If an adequate record or stipulation of fact is available and the right to jury trial is waived by all parties entitled to trial by jury, or

"(2) If the parties stipulate that only questions of law are involved and the district court or the municipal court certifies the question."

In this case there is an adequate record of the municipal court proceedings and the appellant waived his right to a jury trial.

The state's evidence tended to show that in April 1995 the appellant was involved in an automobile collision. Ernest Bishop, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, testified that he was travelling east on highway 32, approaching an intersection with highway 55 and that he had the right-of-way. Bishop testified that the appellant stopped at a stop sign at the intersection. Bishop stated that the appellant then drove his vehicle into the intersection in front of Bishop's vehicle. Bishop further testified that he did not talk to the appellant or hear the appellant talk. The evidence indicated that the appellant had a prosthetic leg, and was himself injured in the collision. Bishop, however, was nevertheless permitted to testify to his opinion as to the appellant's intoxication. He said that in his opinion the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision. The only other witness to testify in district court was Ed Cassebaum. Cassebaum testified that the car driven by Bishop belonged to him and that the insurance company considered the car a total loss. The trial court also received into evidence a medical report of the appellant's blood-alcohol content from Thomas Hospital in Fairhope, Alabama. The report showed that the appellant's blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was .267%. The arresting officer did not testify.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred by receiving into evidence the report showing his blood alcohol content prepared at Thomas Hospital. The following occurred after both prosecution witnesses had testified:

"MR. THEIS [prosecutor]: That's all.

"MR. PIGOTT [defense counsel]: Nothing further.

"MR. THEIS: Judge, we offer to, we'd offer the, ah, certified blood alcohol test that was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.