Reckless Driving Dinwiddie Lawyer Breath Test Virginia Code 18.2-266 Violation
Reckless Driving Dinwiddie Lawyer Breath Test Virginia Code 18.2-266 Violation
Franklin v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After the Circuit Court of the Dinwiddie County Virginia, ruled that evidence that a breath test was offered to defendant would be permitted, but directed the granting of a limiting instruction as to the use of that evidence, a jury convicted defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, and reckless driving in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862. Defendant appealed.
Reckless Driving Dinwiddie Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether trial court erred in admitting testimony that he was offered a preliminary breath test and following his arrest, a breath test?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting testimony that he was offered a preliminary breath test, and, following his arrest, a breath test. The Commonwealth, citing Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-267(C), (E), 18.2-268.10, conceded that the trial court erred in admitting this testimony. However, the appellate court found that any error in admitting that evidence was harmless. Under Va. Code Ann. § 4.1-100, “intoxicated” meant a condition in which a person had drunk enough alcoholic beverages to observably affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appearance, or behavior. There was overwhelming evidence that defendant drove while intoxicated. The evidence at trial proved that defendant drove his car at a reckless speed and that, when stopped, he had an odor of alcohol about his breath, red and glassy eyes, and slurred speech, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. From the totality of the evidence heard by the jury, excluding the officer’s testimony that he offered breath tests to defendant, the trial court’s error in admitting evidence that defendant was offered breath tests was harmless error.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Virginia Suppression Motion Field Sobriety Tests Lawyers Rockingham County
DUI Virginia Suppression Motion Field Sobriety Tests Lawyers Rockingham County
Charles v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After the Circuit Court of Rockingham County, Virginia denied his motion to suppress, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea of driving under the influence (DUI), third or subsequent offense within 10 years, under Va. Code § 18.2-266. He then appealed, contending the trial court erred finding at the suppression hearing that the result of a preliminary breath test (PBT) was admissible and that probable cause existed to arrest him.
DUI Virginia Suppression Motion Field Sobriety Tests Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in finding at the suppression hearing that the result of a preliminary breath test (PBT) was admissible and that probable cause existed to arrest defendant?
Discussion:
An officer stopped defendant for running a red light. Defendant had an odor of alcohol emanating from him, and failed one of three field sobriety tests. Before administering the PBT, the officer read defendant an “implied consent card” and told him he was not required to take the PBT, that it was strictly “for the benefit of probable cause,” and that the result of the PBT could not be used against him “in court” (rather than “in any prosecution,” as set forth in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-267(F)). The appellate court held that the advisement, though inartful, complied with § 18.2-267(F). The officer’s testimony that the PBT machine he used had been calibrated and checked for accuracy and that he had properly cleared it before administering the test supported the trial court’s finding that the test results were admissible at the hearing. As defendant never argued that the trial court could not rely on the PBT result because it was not in evidence, he could not raise this argument on appeal. Evidence that defendant ran a red light, smelled of alcohol, failed a field sobriety test, and registered positive on the PBT gave the officer probable cause to arrest him. The judgment was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Virginia Suppression Breath Test Admissible Lawyers York County
DUI Virginia Suppression Breath Test Admissible Lawyers York County
Tim v. Commonwealth
Facts:
After the Circuit Court of York County, Virginia denied his motion to suppress, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea of driving under the influence (DUI), third or subsequent offense within 10 years, under Va. Code § 18.2-266. He then appealed, contending the trial court erred finding at the suppression hearing that the result of a preliminary breath test (PBT) was admissible and that probable cause existed to arrest him.
DUI Virginia Suppression Breath Test Admissible Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in finding at the suppression hearing that the result of a preliminary breath test (PBT) was admissible and that probable cause existed to arrest defendant?
Discussion:
An officer stopped defendant for running a red light. Defendant had an odor of alcohol emanating from him, and failed one of three field sobriety tests. Before administering the PBT, the officer read defendant an “implied consent card” and told him he was not required to take the PBT, that it was strictly “for the benefit of probable cause,” and that the result of the PBT could not be used against him “in court” (rather than “in any prosecution,” as set forth in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-267(F)). The appellate court held that the advisement, though inartful, complied with § 18.2-267(F). The officer’s testimony that the PBT machine he used had been calibrated and checked for accuracy and that he had properly cleared it before administering the test supported the trial court’s finding that the test results were admissible at the hearing. As defendant never argued that the trial court could not rely on the PBT result because it was not in evidence, he could not raise this argument on appeal. Evidence that defendant ran a red light, smelled of alcohol, failed a field sobriety test, and registered positive on the PBT gave the officer probable cause to arrest him. The judgment was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Virginia Habitual Offender Bifurcated Trial Lawyers Craig County
DUI Virginia Habitual Offender Bifurcated Trial Lawyers Craig County
Commonwealth v. Thomas
Facts:
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Craig County (Virginia), which convicted him of driving under the influence, a third or subsequent offense within five years in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, and of driving after being declared an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-387.8.
DUI Virginia Habitual Offender Bifurcated Trial Lawyers
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior DUI convictions during the guilt stage of the trial and by admitting evidence of his refusal to perform field sobriety tests
Discussion:
Following a bifurcated trial, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), a third or subsequent offense within five years, and of driving after being declared an habitual offender. The court found that the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of defendant’s prior DUI convictions, but did err in admitting evidence of defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety tests. The court noted that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-943 prohibited the introduction of the entire traffic record during the guilt stage of trial but held that evidence of the prior DUI convictions was admissible because prior DUI convictions did not constitute the “traffic record” as contemplated by § 46.2-943 where the offense charged was a subsequent offense of DUI. The court held that evidence of a refusal to submit to field sobriety tests, when used as evidence that defendant refused because he believed he might fail, violated defendant’s right against self-incrimination under Va. Const. art. I, § 8. The court found that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of defendant’s refusal and that the error was not harmless. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction for driving after being declared an habitual offender, reversed the conviction for driving under the influence, and remanded for a new trial
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Traffic Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers Arlington County
Traffic Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers Arlington County
Max v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
In the early morning hours of October 29, 2006, officer of the Arlington County Police Department found appellant, unconscious, reclined in the driver’s seat of a car with its engine running in a school parking lot. Officer determined that appellant had slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet, and had bloodshot eyes. He asked appellant to take field sobriety tests, and appellant agreed to do so. However, appellant refused to attempt it, stating he thought officer wanted to make fun of him. Appellant also refused to attempt the heel-to-toe test and the alphabet test and told officer he had no education and therefore could not perform the alphabet test. Appellant spoke in a soft voice but was belligerent, and repeatedly threatened officer, stating he “prayed that officer’s wife and kids would die within three days.” After talking with appellant for approximately 15 minutes, officer arrested him for traffic offense of DUI. After the trial court denied appellant’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of DUI.
Traffic Virginia Field Sobriety Test Jury Instruction Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in not granting his proffered jury instruction defining operating a motor vehicle?
- Whether the jury erred in finding that the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266?
- Whether the trial court erred at the sentencing phase of his bifurcated jury trial by admitting DMV record into evidence?
Discussion:
1) Whether the trial court erred in not granting his proffered jury instruction defining operating a motor vehicle?
The instruction granted by the trial court fully and fairly covered the principles of law relevant to the question of whether appellant operated the car in which he was found, intoxicated and while the engine was running. We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant’s proffered jury instruction.
2) Whether the jury erred in finding that the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266?
The evidence at trial proved appellant was in his car and was intoxicated, that the key was in the ignition switch of his car, turned to the on position, and the car’s engine was running. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude appellant was in actual physical control of the car, and was “operating” it within the meaning of Code § 18.2-266. Accordingly, we find the jury did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of DUI in violation of Code § 18.2-266.
3) Whether the trial court erred at the sentencing phase of his bifurcated jury trial by admitting DMV record into evidence?
The court held that “The term “prior traffic record,” within the meaning of Code § 46.2-943, is defined as “the record of prior suspensions and revocations of a driver’s license, and the record of prior convictions of traffic offenses described in Code § 46.2-943. A DMV record is admissible evidence of a defendant’s prior traffic record. Accordingly, when the jury found appellant guilty of DUI, Code § 46.2-943 authorized the admission of his DMV record into evidence during the sentencing phase as evidence of his prior traffic record. The Code § 19.2-295.1 notice requirements do not apply to the admission of a defendant’s prior traffic record into evidence pursuant to Code § 46.2-943. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err by admitting appellant’s DMV record into evidence.”
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers Russell County
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers Russell County
TERRY JOE LYLE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
On March 24, 2004 at 7:53 a.m., the Virginia State Police received a telephone call from a citizen reporting a traffic accident on Castlewood Run Road in Russell County. State Trooper J.D. Anderson found a car suspended across a creek adjacent to the highway. The engine was running, and the car was still in gear with the driver’s side door open. There was no one in the car or in the vicinity. Trooper Anderson drove approximately three hundred feet down the road and saw Lyle standing in the middle of the road. When he approached Lyle, Trooper Anderson noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from Lyle. He also testified that Lyle’s speech was extremely slurred. Trooper Anderson initially asked Lyle to perform some field sobriety tests, but stopped after concluding that Lyle was so unsteady that it would be unsafe for him to attempt to perform any of the tests. At trial, Lyle objected to the introduction of the blood test results arguing that he had not been arrested prior to his blood being drawn at the hospital. More than three hours after the accident, the officer served defendant with a uniform traffic summons for driving under the influence. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted introduction of the blood test results, which showed Lyle’s blood alcohol content was 0.23% by weight by volume. The jury found defendant guilty of driving under the influence as a fourth or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. Defendant appealed.
Traffic Accident Virginia Strong Odor Blood Alcohol Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court error in admitting into evidence the results of the analysis?
Discussion:
There was overwhelming evidence introduced at trial showing that Lyle was under the influence of alcohol. When Trooper Anderson stopped Lyle, Anderson detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from Lyle. On cross-examination, Trooper Anderson described Lyle as “extremely drunk” and Lyle’s speech as “extremely slurred” and “difficult to understand.” Based on this record, we conclude the verdict would have been the same in the absence of the blood test results. Even if admission into evidence of the blood test results was error because defendant was not arrested within three hours of driving under the influence, the error was harmless; it held that other evidence of defendant’s intoxication was so compelling that any error in admitting the blood test results did not affect the outcome.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
Former State Trooper
