Court Opinion

ID: 9660919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:24:09.481775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.338442
License: Public Domain

KITCHENS, Justice,
concurring in result only:
¶ 18. With respect to the majority, I disagree that the question that must be answered by this Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of Porter v. State, 749 So.2d 250 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), a Court of Appeals opinion that this Court has never addressed. The only question to be addressed by this Court is whether the trial court erred in not allowing Evans to present evidence that her blood alcohol level was below the legal limit of 0.08% at the time she was driving an automobile.
¶ 19. While I agree with the majority opinion that Porter “is inapplicable to the facts of this case,” and that Porter is not controlling of any issue in the case at hand, I am puzzled by the majority’s utilization of Porter as the foundation of its analysis and its apparent eagerness to embrace Porter’s reasoning. That said, I do concur with the majority’s conclusion that Evans is entitled to present evidence in an effort to disprove the State’s contention that her blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time she was driving an automobile.
¶ 20. Accordingly, I concur with the majority in result only.
GRAVES, P.J., AND DICKINSON, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.