IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2014-KA-00773-COA
TERRANCE RICHARD CAMPBELL A/K/A TERRANCE CAMPBELL A/K/A TERRENCE CAMPBELL A/K/A TERRENCE R. CAMPBELL APPELLANT

v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/26/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAW RENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS JR. COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W . DANIEL HINCHCLIFF ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOEL SMITH NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF FELONY DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 05/19/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. A Harrison County j ury f ound Terrance Richard Cam pbell guilty of driving under the
inf luence (DUI). The court sentenced Cam pbell to f ive y ears in the Mississippi D epartm ent
of Corrections’ custody

. On appeal, C am pbell a rgues that the j ury ’s g eneral verdict is
reversible error because i t d i d not specif y whether the jury f

ound him guilty of “com m onlaw” DUI and/or “per se” DUI. Finding no e r r o r , w e af f irm Cam pbell’s conviction and

sentence.
FACTS ¶2. On Septem

ber 27, 2012, Deputy Pablo De La Cruz responded to a dom e stic-violence
call. He arrived o n scene and s poke w i t h t h e w o ma n involved. She said s h e was f ighting
with C am pbell, and he lef

t

. W hile Deputy De La Cruz was at the scene, Cam pbell returned
in a b lack Nissan Maxim a. Deputy De La Cruz tried to wave him down, but h e ref used to
stop. H e drove across a d i tch and into a y a rd. Deputy De La Cruz testif ied that Cam

pbell

was b elligerent. He had red ey es and slurred speech, and he sm elled of alcohol. The deputy
asked Cam

pbell to exit his car, but he was uncooperative. ¶3. D e p uty Caleb Mitchell of the DUI unit r esponded to the scene. He, t o o , n o t i c e d
Cam pbell had lowered inhibitions and sm elled of alcohol. W hen he o f f ered Cam pbell a f ield sobriety t est, he ref

u sed and asked to go to jail. Mitchell testif ied that Cam

pbell was upset
and used prof

anity

. Af ter D eputy Mitchell arrested Cam pbell, he d iscovered that Cam pbell
had two previous DUI convictions within the l a st two y ears. So he obtained a w arrant to
have Cam

pbell’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) tested at Garden Park Hospital. D e p u ty
Mitchell logged the DUI kit at t he s herif f ’s of f ice. Duriel McKinsey , a f orensic t oxicologist,
testif i ed that he exam ined the kit and f ound i t to be i n good condition. Af t er testing,
Cam pbell’s BAC was determ ined to be .14%. ¶4. A grand jury indicted Cam p bell on two counts. Count I of his i ndictm ent charged him

2with a violat i o n o f Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-11-30(1)(a) (Supp. 2014), or

“com m on-law DUI.” 1 Count II charged him w ith violating s e ction 6 3-11-30(1)(c), ref erred to as “per-se DUI.” 2 At trial, the jury received the f

ollowing instruction:

I f y o u u n a n i m o u s l y fi n d t

h e d e fendant, TERRANCE RICHARD C A M P B E L L , guilty of Count I, driving under the inf luence which i m

p aired his a b ility to drive and y ou f

u rther f ind that he had been twice previously convicted under the Im p lied C onsent Law within f i ve (5) y ears of

Septem ber 27, 2012, OR if y ou unanim ously f

ind the def

endant, TERRANCE RICHARD CAMPBELL, guilty of Count II, d

riving at a tim e while he had an alcohol concentration of eight one[ -]hundredths percent (

. 0 8 % ) or m ore in his blood and y o u f urther f ind that h e h a d b een t wice previously convicted under the Im plied Consent Law within f

ive (5) y e a rs of Septem

b er 27, 2012, [ the] f

orm of y our verdict shall be:
“W e the jury f

ind the d e f

e ndant TERRANCE R ICHARD CAMPBELL guilty of FELONY DRIVING UN D ER THE INFLUENCE.”
If y ou f ind the def

endant, Terrance Richard Cam pbell, not guilty of Count I, driving u nder the inf

luence [ , ] A N D n o t guilty of Count II, driving a t a tim e while he had an alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths percent (.08%)
or m ore in his blood on Septem ber 27, 2012, the f

orm of y our verdict shall be:
“W e, the jury f

ind the de f

e n d ant TERRANCE R ICHARD CAMPBELL not guilty of FELONY DRIVING U NDER THE INFLUENCE.” ¶5. The jury f

ound Cam

pbell guilty of f

elony driving un d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e w i t h o u t

1 S ectio n 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 (1 )(a) p ro v id es: “It is u n law f u l f o r an y p erso n to d riv e o r o th erw ise
o p erate a v eh icle w ith i n th is state w h o
. . . is u n d er th e in f lu en ce o f in to x icatin g liq u o r[ .] ”

2 S ectio n 6 3

- 1 1 -3 0 (1 )(c) p ro v id es: “It is u n law f u l f o r a n y p e rso n t o d riv e o r o th erw ise
o p erate a v eh icle w ith i n th is st a te w h o
. . . h as an alco h o l co n c e n tratio n o f eig h t o n e-h u n d r ed th s p ercen t (.0 8 % ) o r m o re f o r p erso n s w h o are ab o v e th e l eg al ag e to p u rch ase alco h o l ic b ev e rag es u n d e r state law [ .] ”
3specif

y ing whether the verdict was f o r com m on-law DUI or f or per se DUI.
DISCUSSION ¶6. Cam

p bell a r g u es one issue on appeal — that the jury ’ s verdict was insuf f icient and
did not s pecif

y w hether it was f

or Count I, Count II, or both. W e presum e that j urors f ollow
the court’s instructions. Stubbs v. State , 878 So. 2d 130, 137 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2004). “[ A] jury ’s verdict w ill not be reversed f or “m ere want of f

orm ,” so l ong a s the “jury ’s intent

can b e u nderstood in a r easonably clear m anner.” Jordan v. State , 912 So. 2 d 800, 8 14 (¶35) (Miss. 2005) ( citing Miss. Code Ann. § 9 9-19-9 (Rev. 2007)). See also Coles v. State , 756 So. 2d 12, 14 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). ¶7. In this case the jury ’s v e rdict sta t e d : “ We , the jury , f ind the [ d]ef

endant, Terrance
Richard Cam

pbell[ ,] guilty of Felony Driving Under the Inf luence” — as did th e j u r y in
Oatis v. State , 146 So. 3d 1015, 1021 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014), a case directly on point in which we specif

i cally held:
Since the jury could have convicted Oatis of either com m on-law DUI o r per se DUI, and the evidence was legally suf f i c i e n t f or either crim e, the jury ' s return of a general verdict is of no signif icance. ¶8. W e f

ind the evidence was suf

f icient to support a verdict under either count. ¶9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF H ARRISON COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF FEL ONY DRIVING UNDER THE I NFLUENCE AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT O F CORRECTIONS I S A F FIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING A N D G R IFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAX WELL AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.

4