A Conviction for Driving while Intoxicated - Essay Example

Objection Fred Friendliness is charged with Driving While Intoxicated. A person testifying for the prosecution is a high school graduate. The testifier measured the skid mark of the defendant and assumed the defendant was driving at least 65 miles per hour. Additionally, the defendant believes that the any person who drinks at least two beers already intoxicated. According to the wife, the police flushed his face making him to stagger. According to the defendant’s golfing friend testified that the Fred took a lot of alcohol at a nearby joint. The paper therefore discusses how the defense could object to the witness’s testimony. Consequently, the paper also discusses how appellate court will rule on the objection. The outcome of the alcohol test was issued as one of the evidence (Krey & Theresa, 75). According to the judge, if Fred Friendless has a blood content of 10, they must presume that Fred Friendless is intoxicated. Therefore, obtaining a conviction for Driving while intoxicated, the prosecution will need to establish that Fred Friendless was actually operating the vehicle under the influence. This will be accomplished through circumstantial evidence or by the witness of the eyewitness. From Fred Friendless case, the court will review the Driving While Intoxication conviction where Fred Friendless’ prosecution will prove that he was driving the vehicle. Evidence from the high school head teacher revealed that he measured the skid mark of the defendant and assumed the defendant was driving at least 65 miles per hour. Additionally, the defendant believes that the any person who drinks at least two beers already intoxicated. This is a direct prove that Fred was actually driving under the influence of alcohol (Dolinko, 67). The evidence does not establish that the defendant was under the physical control of the car and hence it is not sufficient to prove that Fred was driving the vehicle. The prosecution also needs to establish the intoxication, which he did not. According to the statutes, it is noted that, intoxication normally occur due to alcohol intake of contraband ingestion. Intoxication is normally hard to articulate. In addition to submitting the blood sample, the police needs to testify the speech, appearance, or behavior and if the police detected the smell of the alcohol beverage on Fred. The factors are important and pertinent evidence of the physical impairment and mental impairment of the defendant. During Berkemer v. McCarty 468 US 420, the Supreme Court believed that the police roadside administration and questioning of the sobriety test to a person stopped for poor and irregular driving is not a custodian interrogation that needed to give the suspect a Miranda warning. The court is cautious that the warning is applicable one only if the suspect is arrested (Emanuel, 84).The field sobriety test is likely to be unreliable and the supreme court have begun scrutinizing cases relying on the sobriety test that do not have the supporting chemical test of breath or blood of the suspect. The counsel representing the Fred Friendless will have reasons to challenge the methodology of the officer’s administration who took the sobriety test. Especially where Fred Friendless suffer from any physical impairment or has been under medication that might make it hard to carry out the tests. The defense counsel needs to have a fundamental knowledge of evidence and be ready to challenge the validity and reliability of the testing equipment and the operator’s competence level (Mikell, 84). They need to present the expert testimony that challenges the chemicals that the machines measured and offer concrete evidence of the medication that the Fred Friendless took at the time of testing. The state has rules that specify the procedures and rules that need to be followed when administering the breathing test. The defense counsel will object the results of the intoxilyzer testing on the basis that the high school head teacher failed to establish a right admissibility predicate. The objection of the counsel arises when the intoxilyzer test was not properly calibrated during the blood alcohol test. The trial court is likely to deny the motion. However, on appealing the appellate court is likely to agree with the defense. This is because there is possibility that there is no evidence that used in performing the test as required by the department of Forensics. The administrative rule of the state requires that the observation period is given before the breathing test is carried out to make sure that no substance will enter the defendant’s mouth that will have an effect on the test result validity. For instance, according to the governing test, the test is only valid when the driver failed to regurgitate within the observation period of 20 minutes before carrying out the test. According to people vs. Bonutti 817 NE2d 489 (2004). The defense counsel will object introducing the test due to acid reflux defense. The Supreme Court is likely to reverse the ruling of the lower court and suppressing the breath alcohol test since the evidence reveals that the defendant is likely to suffer from episode of acid reflux while waiting for the breath test result (Rood,121). The defense counsel will object the outcome of the breath test conducted by the intoxilyzer. Especially when the manufacturer of this instrument unwilling to release the source codes, claiming that the information will fail to satisfy requirement materiality and they tend to protect them as trade secrets. The non-disclosure of the codes will deny the defendant with the evidence material that will support the defense and the instruments are not approved as needed by the consent statute. Increasingly, nondisclosure of the codes will lead to excluding the intoxilizer evidence during trial or denying the prosecution with the shortened predicate and presumptions for admissibility of breathing test results allowed under the law. The field sobriety test is likely to be unreliable and the supreme court have begun scrutinizing cases relying on the sobriety test that do not have the supporting chemical test of breath or blood of the suspect. The prosecution also needs to establish the intoxication, which he did not. According to the statutes, it is noted that, intoxication normally occur due to alcohol intake of contraband ingestion (Scheb& John, 271). Work Cited Dolinko, David. Constitutional criminal procedure: Law 202. Los Angeles, Calif.: Academic Pub. Services, 2008. Print. Emanuel, Steven. Criminal procedure. 6th ed. Austin: Wolters Kluwer, Law & Business :, 2009. Print. Krey, Volker, and Theresa Wilhelmi.Criminal procedure law: textbook. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009. Print. Mikell, William Ephraim. Criminal law. Chicago: Blackstone Institute, 2007. Print. Rood, John R.. Criminal law. Chicago: La Salle Extension University, 2010. Print. Scheb, John M., and John M. Scheb.Criminal law and procedure. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Read More