Jacob Callaway v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
BRIAN S. MILLER, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR06-718
February 28, 2007
JACOB CALLAWAY
APPELLANT
v.
AN APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-2005-47-4]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE DON E. GLOVER,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Following an October 18, 2005, bench trial, the Bradley County Circuit Court
convicted appellant Jacob Callaway of driving while intoxicated and careless driving. He
was fined $1250 plus court costs. On appeal, Callaway argues that the trial court erred when
it admitted the results of his blood test. We affirm Callaway’s conviction.
Because Callaway does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, only a brief
recitation of the facts is necessary. On October 4, 2004, while driving to work in Warren,
Arkansas, Callaway was involved in a motor-vehicle accident. Callaway did not smell of
intoxicants; however, because his speech was slurred, his eyes appeared bloodshot, and he
was unsteady on his feet, the responding officer had Callaway submit to a series of sobriety
tests. When Callaway was unable to perform any of the tests, he was placed under arrest for
driving while intoxicated. After being transported to the police station and informed of the
informed consent laws, Callaway was taken to a local hospital to have blood drawn for a drug
analysis that would test for the presence of non-alcoholic substances.
During his bench trial, Callaway objected to the State’s introduction of the results of
his blood analysis. He argued that, because it was not possible to perform the blood analysis
according to a method approved or adopted by the Department of Health, the results were not
admissible. The trial court took Callaway’s objection under advisement. The trial court later
ruled that the results of the blood-analysis results were admissible. Callaway now challenges
the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the results of the blood analysis.
Callaway argues that the blood-analysis results were inadmissible because the State
failed to show that the analysis was conducted by a method approved or adopted by the State
Health Department. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-204(b) (Repl. 2005) provides
in pertinent part:
(1)(A) A chemical analyses made to determine the presence and amount of alcohol
of a person’s blood, urine, or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this
act shall be performed according to a method approved by the Division of Health of
the Department of Health and Human Services or by an individual possessing a valid
permit issued by the division for this purpose.
When a defendant challenges the admissibility of evidence under this section, it is the State’s
burden to establish the validity of the chemical analysis. Tenner v. State, 88 Ark. App. 123,
195 S.W.3d 383 (2004).
2
During a pretrial hearing, the State admitted that the State Department of Health had
yet to provide guidelines for the testing of non-alcoholic controlled substances. Furthermore,
when Callaway raised his argument during trial, the State failed to offer any evidence as to
the validity of the blood analysis. In response to Callaway’s argument on appeal, the State
argues that any error was harmless. We agree. The harmless error rule provides that when
evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and the error slight, we can declare the error to be
harmless. Criddle v. State, 338 Ark. 744, 1 S.W.3d 436 (1999). Furthermore, a DWI
conviction is not dependent upon evidence of blood-alcohol content in view of other
sufficient evidence of intoxication. Wortham v. State, 65 Ark. App. 81, 985 S.W.2d 329
(1999); see also Weeks v. State, 64 Ark. App. 1, 977 S.W.2d 241 (1998).
If the contested results were omitted from evidence, there would still be overwhelming
evidence of Callaway’s guilt. At Callaway’s trial, Officer Justin Davis of the Warren Police
Department testified that he was the arresting officer. He testified that when Callaway exited
his vehicle, Callaway had trouble standing up. He admitted that Callaway did not smell of
any type of intoxicating substance but said that Callaway’s eyes were blood-shot and his
speech was slurred. Officer Davis also said that Callaway failed his field sobriety tests.
Callaway testified that, at the time of the accident, he was returning to work after
going home to take his medication. During his testimony, he stated:
Yes, sir, I was under a doctor’s care at the time, Dr. Pennington. Yes, I was supposed
to be taking prescribed medication. It’s called Amaryl. It’s for sugar. Well, I’m
borderline [diabetic]. And what it was, was I would skip taking it and it would get
high, so I’d double up on taking it and drop out. That’s what would cause the thing,
3
I found out later. That what would cause me to — I’ve done it before. The dizzy
spells.
Callaway testified that he was to take the medication twice a day, once in the morning and
again in the evening. He said that, before the accident, the last time he had taken his
medication was the evening of October 2. He said that, on October 4, because he was not
feeling well, he drove home and took two pills, double the prescribed amount.
Based on Officer Davis’s testimony and Callaway’s own testimony, there was
overwhelming evidence of Callaway’s guilt. We hold that even if the blood-analysis results
had been omitted, the State could establish Callaway’s guilt and that any error that occurred
by the admission of the blood-analysis results was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
V AUGHT and H EFFLEY, JJ., agree.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
