Title: Mace v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Bruce MACE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-993                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 19, 1997


1.   Evidence -- sufficiency of -- factors on review. -- The     
     evidence to support a conviction, whether direct or
     circumstantial, must be of sufficient force and character that
     it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision,
     compel a conclusion one way or the other; the verdict of the
     trial court will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial
     evidence, and circumstantial evidence may constitute
     substantial evidence; to be sufficient to sustain a
     conviction, the circumstantial evidence must exclude every
     other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
 
2.   Automobiles -- DWI -- "intoxicated" defined -- conviction not
     necessarily dependent on evidence of blood-alcohol content. --
     The term "intoxicated" as used in the DWI offense includes
     being "influenced or affected by the ingestion of alcohol, a
     controlled substance, any intoxicant, or any combination
     thereof"; DWI conviction is not dependent upon evidence of
     blood-alcohol content in view of other sufficient evidence of
     intoxication. 

3.   Automobiles -- DWI -- opinion testimony regarding intoxication
     is admissible. -- Opinion testimony regarding intoxication is
     admissible.
4.   Automobiles -- DWI -- observations of officers that appellant
     was intoxicated constituted competent evidence to support DWI
     charge. -- Where both officers testified that, in their
     opinions, appellant was intoxicated, had extremely bloodshot
     eyes, was very unsteady on his feet, and had to hang on his
     vehicle for support, and there was testimony that appellant
     failed all four of the field sobriety tests that were
     administered to him, the officers' observations constituted
     competent evidence supporting the DWI conviction. 

5.   Automobiles -- improper left turn observed by officer --
     evidence supported conviction for violating city ordinance. --
     The appellant's conviction for making an improper left turn in
     violation of Little Rock City Ordinance  32-271 was upheld
     where the officer testified that he observed appellant's
     vehicle make a left turn without signaling and watched as the
     vehicle crossed over the centerline, into the opposite lane of
     traffic when making the left turn; this was a clear violation
     of the ordinance. 
 
6.   Witnesses -- qualification as expert witness within trial
     court's discretion -- trial court's decision will not be
     reversed absent abuse of discretion. -- Whether a witness
     qualifies as an expert is a matter within the trial court's
     discretion, and the supreme court will not reverse the trial
     court's decision absent an abuse of that discretion; if some
     reasonable basis exists from which it can be said the witness
     has knowledge of the subject beyond that of ordinary
     knowledge, the evidence is admissible as expert testimony.  

7.   Witnesses -- officer's specialized training aided circuit
     court in determining fact in issue -- no abuse of discretion
     found in circuit court's qualifying officer as expert witness.
     -- Where the officer had attended a drug recognition expert
     school as well as six field sobriety training schools and the
     circuit court specifically stated that it was qualifying the
     officer as an expert for a narrow purpose, whether appellant
     was impaired because of some kind of intoxicant, the supreme
     court agreed that the officer's specialized training and
     knowledge aided the circuit court in determining this fact in
     issue; appellant failed to demonstrate the circuit court
     abused its discretion in qualifying the officer as a drug
     recognition expert.


8.   Evidence -- State's proof constituted sufficient evidence of
     refusal-to-submit violation -- circuit court's dismissal
     declared error. -- The trial judge erred in granting
     appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of refusing to submit
     to a chemical test where, after reviewing the testimony, it
     was determined that although the officer selected a blood
     test, he also gave appellant the option of taking a urine
     test; appellant refused any further testing after submitting
     to the breathalyzer test; the State's proof constituted
     sufficient evidence of a refusal-to-submit violation; due to
     the circuit court's dismissal of the refusal-to-submit charge
     in appellant's favor, his double-jeopardy rights prevented a
     retrial for this offense; error was declared.   


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Chris Piazza, Judge;
affirmed on direct appeal; error declared on cross appeal.
     Ralph M. Cloar, Jr., and William H. Craig, for appellant. 
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen. and Thomas M. Carpenter, Little Rock City Att'y, by: 
Anthony M. Black, Asst. City Att'y, for appellee.

     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     The appellant, Bruce Mace, was charged with driving while
intoxicated, making an illegal left turn, and refusing to submit to
a chemical test.  He was convicted in municipal court and appealed
to circuit court.  After granting Mace's motion to dismiss the
refusal-to-submit charge, the circuit court found him guilty of
driving while intoxicated and making an illegal left turn.  Mace
appeals his convictions, and the State cross-appeals the dismissal
of the refusal-to-submit charge.  We affirm the decision of the
circuit court on direct appeal, but declare error on cross appeal. 
     On August 21, 1995, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Little Rock
Police Officer Charles Weaver was patrolling the area of 12th,
13th, and Woodrow Streets in Little Rock.  He observed Mace's
vehicle make a left turn without signaling.   According to Officer
Weaver, Mace's vehicle made what he termed a "bootleg" turn, or a
crossing over the centerline into the opposite lane of traffic. 
When Officer Weaver stopped Mace's vehicle, he observed that Mace
had extremely bloodshot eyes, was very unsteady on his feet, and
had to hang on his vehicle for support.  Officer Weaver
administered four field sobriety tests to Mace, all of which he
failed.  In the officer's opinion, Mace had been driving while
intoxicated.  He further observed that Mace's passenger, Caroline
Grafton, had six rock-like substances resembling crack cocaine in
her hand.  She was placed under arrest for possession of cocaine. 
Grafton told Officer Weaver that the rocks belonged to Mace.
     Officer Ray Moreno arrived at the scene to assist Officer
Weaver.  He testified that Mace failed the horizontal gaze
nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. 
Thereafter, Mace was transported to the Pulaski County Detention
Center, where Officer Moreno advised him of his rights under the
implied-consent law.  Mace signed a form and marked the section
indicating that he understood his rights.  Officer Moreno then
requested that Mace submit to a breath-alcohol-content (BAC) test. 
Mace agreed to take the test, which revealed no alcohol in his
bloodstream.  Believing that Mace was under the influence of some
type of drug, Officer Moreno then requested that Mace submit to a
blood test.  He also gave Mace the option of taking a urine test. 
According to Officer Moreno, Mace did not want any tests.  Because
Mace refused to submit to a blood test, Officer Moreno charged him
with violation of the implied-consent law.    
     At the close of the State's case, the circuit court dismissed
the refusal-to-submit charge, but denied Mace's motions to dismiss
the driving-while-intoxicated and improper-left-turn charges.  At
the close of all the evidence, Mace renewed his motions on these
charges, and the motions were again denied.  The circuit court
found Mace guilty as charged, sentenced him to one day in jail with
credit for one day served, suspended his driving privileges for
ninety days, ordered that he complete an approved alcohol treatment
program, and fined him $150.00.  For making an improper left turn,
the circuit court fined Mace $50.00.  

                   Sufficiency of the evidence
     The general rule with respect to sufficiency of the evidence
is: 
         The evidence to support a conviction, whether direct 
    or circumstantial, must be of sufficient force and 
    character that it will, with reasonable and material 
    certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or 
    the other.  Smith v. State, 308 Ark. 390,