Mary Reed Evans v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KM-00443-COA
MARY REED EVANS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
2/20/2007
HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER III
MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOSEPH JOSHUA STEVENS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
ROBERT DON BAKER
CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTED OF DUI (FIRST OFFENSE)
AND SENTENCED TO FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
SHERIFF OF MONROE COUNTY, SUCH
SENTENCE SUSPENDED IF DEFENDANT
DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL OR
STATE LAWS FOR SIX MONTHS; FINE OF
$1,000
REVERSED AND REMANDED - 10/28/2008
BEFORE KING, C.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Justice Court of Monroe County convicted Mary Reed Evans of driving under
the influence (DUI), first offense. Evans appealed to the Circuit Court of Monroe County.
After a trial de novo without a jury, the circuit court came to the same result. Evans now
appeals to this Court. We reverse and remand to the circuit court for a new trial.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
Late in the afternoon of July 19, 2006, Evans, who lives in Prairie, Mississippi, drove
to pick up her friend, Julann Callender, who lives in Aberdeen, Mississippi. The two women
traveled to Tupelo to shop at Sam’s Club. Once they finished shopping, they went to
Woody’s, a restaurant and lounge in Tupelo. Between the hours of approximately 6:00 p.m.
and 11:00 p.m., they had dinner. Evans said she drank four Bud Lights. Both women claim
the only alcohol they consumed that evening was at Woody’s. They left the restaurant and
drove back to Aberdeen. At approximately midnight, Evans dropped Callender off at her
home. Callender testified that she offered Evans a beer as she was leaving, which Evans
accepted. Callender claimed that Evans did not appear to be intoxicated.
¶3.
Evans then proceeded home to Prairie along Highway 382. There had been a severe
storm that evening; so trees and power lines were down in the area. Approximately two
miles from Evans’s home, Mississippi Highway Patrolman Andrew Sisk had the eastbound
lane of Highway 382 partially blocked as emergency vehicles were cleaning the debris from
the highway. Officer Sisk was inside his patrol car with his headlights and blue lights on.
He testified he was attempting to redirect traffic to a county road. When Evans came upon
this area in the westbound lane, she proceeded slowly, but she did not stop her vehicle.
Officer Sisk, wanting her to stop, tried to get Evans’s attention by cutting his spotlight on
and shining it in her car, but to no avail. Feeling she should have known to stop, Officer
Sisk pulled Evans over approximately one-half mile from the area. When he approached her
vehicle, he noticed the smell of alcohol emanating from Evans’s vehicle. He saw an open
2
beer can on the console (the one Callender had given Evans); however, Evans testified she
had not consumed any of it. Officer Sisk also saw three or four unopened beers in Evans’s
backseat. When queried about whether she had had any alcohol to drink that evening, Evans
admitted to Officer Sisk she had been drinking beer at Woody’s that evening. He proceeded
to administer an alcohol test with a portable Intoxilyzer device, which detected the presence
of alcohol on her breath, but he did not conduct any field sobriety tests. Evans was then
arrested and taken to the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, where she agreed to have a blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) test on the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine.
¶4.
However, before Evans and Officer Sisk departed for the sheriff’s office, they had to
wait for a wrecker from Aberdeen to tow Evans’s car, as this was standard operating
procedure. Evans’s DUI ticket shows the time of the stop as 12:50 a.m. By the time Evans
completed the paperwork at the sheriff’s office and the BAC test was administered, it was
1:58 a.m. After a delay of one hour and eight minutes from the time she was driving and
pulled over to the time of the test, Evans’s BAC was determined to be .09%, or .01% over
the legal limit of .08%, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-11-30(1)(c)
(Supp. 2008). Therefore, she was charged with DUI, first offense.
¶5.
The Justice Court of Monroe County convicted Evans of DUI. She appealed the
conviction to the Circuit Court of Monroe County, which held a trial de novo without a jury,
finding Evans guilty. Prior to the trial, the State moved in limine to exclude the testimony
of the defense’s expert witness, Dr. A.K. Rosenhan, who was to testify regarding the
3
absorption rate of alcohol. The State argued that since this case is a DUI per se violation,1
the defense is prohibited from introducing evidence of alcohol consumption. The State
continued that in order for the expert to formulate an opinion about Evans’s absorption rate,
evidence would have to be introduced about her consumption of alcohol, which the State
claimed is prohibited by Porter v. State, 749 So. 2d 250 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). Therefore,
the State moved to prohibit the introduction of any evidence from either expert or lay
witnesses who would testify as to the manner or timing of her consumption of alcohol. After
the defense argued Porter was inapplicable to the present case, the circuit court judge
granted the State’s motion. However, Dr. Rosenhan was allowed to proffer his testimony
for the sole purpose of creating a record. Evans now appeals to this Court.
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Evans raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding the expert
testimony of Dr. Rosenhan, and (2) whether Porter precludes testimony relating to the
amount and timing of the consumption of alcohol that would provide the necessary basis
for the expert’s opinion on the possible BAC of Evans at the time she was operating her
vehicle. We shall discuss these issues together as they are interlinked – Porter was cited as
the basis for the trial court’s exclusion of the consumption of alcohol evidence and Dr.
Rosenhan’s expert testimony.
1
A “DUI per se” violation means a violation that should be charged as an offense
under section 63-11-30(1)(c), “when test results are available and are sufficient to give the
officer probable cause” to believe that the person is operating a vehicle with a BAC of .08%
or more. Leuer v. City of Flowood, 744 So. 2d 266, 268 (¶7) (Miss. 1999) (quoting Young
v. City of Brookhaven, 693 So. 2d 1355, 1363-64 (Miss. 1997) (citation omitted)).
4
¶7.
Evans argues that the circuit court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine based on
Porter was in error; thus, the circuit court and the State misinterpreted Porter. The State
contends that the evidence was properly excluded under Porter. The State also argues that
even if the circuit court misapplied Porter, the evidence and testimony were properly
excluded because Dr. Rosenhan was not qualified as an expert under Mississippi Rule of
Evidence 702.
¶8.
The standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence is an abuse of
discretion. Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 34 (¶4) (Miss. 2003).
Further, “the admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
Therefore, the decision of a trial judge will stand ‘unless we conclude that the discretion was
arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.’” Id. (internal citations
omitted).
¶9.
The central issue in this case is whether Evans was illegally intoxicated at the time
she was operating her vehicle when driving home from Tupelo. Officer Sisk pulled her over
at 12:50 a.m., but Evans’s BAC was not tested on the Intoxilyzer 8000 until 1:58 a.m.,
resulting in an approximate one-hour delay since the time she was pulled over. The machine
determined Evans’s BAC to be .09%, or .01% over the legal limit. Dr. Rosenhan proffered
testimony on retrograde extrapolation, which has been explained as a scientific method of
making a determination of the BAC at a particular point in time by “predicting an earlier
unknown value by calculating a known later value with a series of generally used average
values, and projecting that result back in time.” Smith v. State, 942 So. 2d 308, 312 (¶8)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Dr. Rosenhan described it as a “mathematical relationship” related
5
to whether Evans was in the absorption or metabolism phase of ethanol ingestion. The
defense sought to establish, through Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony, that from the time she was
stopped by Officer Sisk until the time of the test, Evans’s BAC was rising, as she was in the
absorption phase of ethanol ingestion. He based this opinion that Evans was in the
absorption phase on her body weight, the time frame of ethanol ingestion, and the amount
of ethanol consumed – four twelve-ounce Bud Lights. Evans was within a few minutes from
her house when she was pulled over; so Dr. Rosenhan opined her BAC would not have risen
over the legal limit of .08% BAC before she arrived home. During cross-examination, the
State pointed out the fact that Evans first blew a BAC of .104 and two minutes later blew a
.099, indicating her BAC was decreasing at the time of the test. On redirect, however, Dr.
Rosenhan countered that it is not unusual for small variations in the test results such as these,
and one could not draw any conclusions concerning retrograde extrapolation from them.
¶10.
We find the circuit court judge erred in excluding evidence of Evans’s alcohol
consumption and the expert testimony of Dr. Rosenhan. His testimony was relevant as he
would have offered his expert opinion regarding Evans’s BAC at the time she was pulled
over by Officer Sisk.
This evidence is especially relevant here, where there was
approximately a one-hour delay between the time she was pulled over and the time she was
tested, and her BAC level was only .01% over the legal limit.
¶11.
Furthermore, we find the circuit court misapplied Porter as the basis for excluding
the evidence. The circuit court judge accepted the argument by the State that the defense is
prohibited from introducing evidence from either expert or lay witnesses regarding alcohol
consumption because this is a “DUI per se case” under Porter, and there was an admissible
6
Intoxilyzer test result that showed Evans’s BAC to be over the legal limit. The State
explained, and the circuit court agreed, that if this evidence on alcohol consumption is
inadmissible, Dr. Rosenhan’s expert testimony then becomes irrelevant, because in order for
the expert to formulate his opinion about Evans’s BAC at the time she was pulled over,
evidence on consumption would have to be admitted to apply his retrograde-extrapolation
formula to the facts of the case.
¶12.
We agree with Evans that Porter is not controlling in the instant case. In Porter, after
being arrested, the defendant submitted to an Intoxilyzer analysis of his BAC at the police
station. His BAC was determined to be .164%. Porter, 749 So. 2d at 253 (¶5). There was
no issue regarding a lapse of time between his arrest and the test. Procedurally, at trial the
circuit court granted the State’s motion in limine, and this Court found no error. Id. at 255
(¶15). Porter sought to present evidence that would rebut what he termed “the ‘presumption’
that his blood alcohol content of .164% impaired his ability to operate his vehicle.” Id. at
254-55 (¶13).
¶13.
In order to understand Porter’s holding in light of our current DUI laws, we must
analyze the DUI statute’s legislative history. As the Porter court explained, since an
amendment to the DUI statutes in 1983, it is a “per se” violation to operate a vehicle when
the defendant’s BAC, as shown through a chemical analysis, is over the legal limit, which
at that time was .10%.2 Id. at 255 (¶14) (citing Fisher v. City of Europa, 587 So. 2d 878, 888
2
In 2002, this standard was lowered to .08%. See Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30 (1)(c)
(Supp. 2003).
7
(Miss. 1991)). Therefore, this Court stated that the supreme court explained in Fisher that
since 1983, there is no longer a statutory “presumption” that a person is intoxicated if he is
over the legal limit for BAC, but instead it is a “per se” violation under section 63-11-30.
Id. This is the “presumption” that Porter was attempting to rebut. Further, in 1991, section
63-11-39(2) (1972), a statute allowing the introduction of evidence on whether or not a
person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor which impaired a person’s ability to
operate a motor vehicle, was repealed. Id. at 255 (¶15). Because of this repeal, this Court
found Porter’s argument nullified, as he could not enter evidence that he was not impaired
because he was prosecuted for a DUI per se violation, and not impairment. Id.
¶14.
Currently, the pertinent Mississippi DUI statute provides in part that it is unlawful for
any person to drive or operate a vehicle in Mississippi if he is: (a) under the influence of
intoxicating liquor; (b) under the influence of any other substance which has impaired such
person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle; or (c) has an alcohol concentration of eight
one-hundredths percent (.08%) or more for persons at or above the legal age to purchase
alcoholic beverages in Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(1)(a)-(c). Section
63-11-30(1)(a) is referred to as “common law DUI,” and it is distinguishable from section
63-11-30(1)(c), which is referred to as “per se DUI.” “Common law DUI” is often used to
prosecute defendants when BAC test results are unavailable, or the defendant’s BAC tests
are under the legal limit, but there is sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s ability to
operate a vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol. Leuer, 744 So. 2d at 268
(¶¶6-7). This evidence of impairment may include slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or erratic
driving. However, in Evans’s case, we do not have any such “impairment” evidence, only
8
her BAC level. Thus, Evans was not prosecuted under the common law DUI statute, but for
a per se violation under section 63-11-30(1)(c). We read Porter to stand for the proposition
that in a DUI per se case, the defendant cannot offer evidence regarding whether or not he
was under the influence which would impair his ability to drive a vehicle.3 We do not read
Porter as holding that in a DUI per se case, evidence regarding the consumption of alcohol
cannot be introduced to prove whether or not the defendant was at a certain BAC when he
was driving a motor vehicle. In the instant case, Evans was not offering evidence of her
consumption of alcohol and Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony on retrograde extrapolation for the
purpose of proving she was not impaired when she was pulled over. Instead, she offered it
for the purpose of proving that she did not have a BAC of .08% or over when she was pulled
over; thus, she did not violate section 63-11-30(1)(c). We find this distinction dispositive.
¶15.
The State interprets Evans’s argument to be that although her BAC was over the legal
limit when she was tested, she was not impaired an hour earlier when she was driving; thus,
Evans is really trying to prove, through Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony and other evidence, that
her alcohol consumption did not impair her ability to drive. We find the State misinterprets
Evans’s argument and her purpose for introducing the evidence. Evans could not introduce
evidence to prove that, even though her BAC test result was .09%, she was not impaired at
the time she was driving, because this would conflict with the holding of Porter. However,
we do not find this was the reason Evans offered the evidence; instead, it was offered to
3
However, this type of evidence would be properly offered for a violation of section
63-11-30(1)(a).
9
prove her BAC was not above the legal limit when she was pulled over.
¶16.
Moreover, regarding testimony on retrograde extrapolation, as Evans points out,
Mississippi courts have allowed this type of expert testimony in DUI per se cases where
there has been a time lapse between the time the defendant was last driving and the time of
the BAC test. However, in most cases, the State is offering the testimony in order to prove
the defendant’s BAC at the time of the accident or arrest was actually higher at this time than
at the time of the test. In Cowart v. State, 910 So. 2d 726 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), an expert
witness was allowed to testify for the State on “rates of absorption and metabolism of
alcohol” in order to prove that the defendant’s BAC, which measured .16% three hours after
the accident, was roughly .20% at the time of the accident, and thus the defendant’s claim
that he was not intoxicated at the time of the accident was untrue. Id. at 729 (¶13).
¶17.
Additionally, in Smith, both the State and the defense were allowed to offer expert
testimony on retrograde extrapolation. Smith, 942 So. 2d at 316-17 (¶21). In Smith, the
defendant’s BAC was taken four hours after the accident and found to be .13%. Id. at 311
(¶5). Both experts came to different results: the State’s expert was allowed to testify that
Smith’s BAC would have been higher at the time of the accident. Id. The defense’s expert
testified that in this case, retrograde extrapolation was an unreliable method of estimating
Smith’s BAC at the time of the accident because there was only one known value for the
calculations, and two known values were needed. Id. at 317 (¶22). Further, the defense’s
expert argued retrograde extrapolation was only accurate up to a maximum of two hours, and
Smith argued the four-hour delay precluded the BAC test’s admissibility. Id. The trial court
allowed the State’s expert to give her opinion to the jury that Smith’s BAC would have been
10
higher at the time of the accident than when his blood was tested, but she was precluded
from quantifying what Smith’s BAC would have been at the time of the accident. Id. at 317
(¶24). This Court affirmed, finding the trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role in
determining that the testimony of both experts would aid the jury.4 Id. at 318 (¶26). Also,
the defense’s expert was allowed to testify to counter the State’s expert. Id. We find no
distinction between these cases and the instant case, where the defendant is trying to use
retrograde extrapolation to prove her BAC was rising, not decreasing, in the time period
before her BAC test.5
¶18.
Finally, the State argues that if this Court finds Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony was
improperly excluded under Porter, Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony is still inadmissible because
he did not qualify as an expert. Evans, however, maintains that Dr. Rosenhan’s expertise
was not challenged at trial. The State disagrees, contending that the prosecutor actually did
challenge Dr. Rosenhan’s qualifications by stating that he was “not aware of any expertise”
4
There was no issue on appeal as to whether the trial court should have allowed the
State’s expert to quantify the BAC at the time of the accident.
5
We are not persuaded by the attempt of the dissent to distinguish Cowart and Smith.
While these cases do concern section 63-11-30(5), DUI manslaughter, rather than section 6311-30(1) alone, by definition, in order to violate subsection (5), there has to be a violation
of subsection (1). The opinions did not specify what portion of subsection (1) was involved;
however, we have reviewed the records of those cases and have confirmed that each
defendant was indicted for causing the accident while having ten one-hundredths percent
(.10%) or more by weight volume of alcohol in his blood. Further, the jury instructions and
closing arguments of both cases do not reflect that there was any issue of intoxication other
than by exceeding the BAC. We have reviewed the entire trial transcript of Cowart, and
there was no evidence presented of any impairment at the time of the accident, other than
Cowart’s BAC. The testimony cited by the dissent regarding Cowart’s evidence of
intoxication and statements to law enforcement officers were after his return to the scene two
hours later. Accordingly, we find these DUI per se cases analogous to the one before us.
11
in the field of “ethanol ingestion in the body.”
¶19.
We are not persuaded by the State’s argument. The following colloquy occurred at
trial among defense counsel Joshua Stevens, and prosecutor Robert Baker, after Dr.
Rosenhan was examined about his qualifications:
Mr. Stevens:
Specifically have you been tendered as an expert witness
and served as an expert witness in DUI case type studies,
blood alcohol content?
Dr. Rosenhan:
Yes, sir. In that list of courts for blood alcohol
calculations and discussion of the methods that they are
determined.
Mr. Stevens:
Are you familiar with what we mean by the absorption
phase and the metabolism phase of one who has ingested
alcohol?
Dr. Rosenhan:
Yes, sir. This has been reduced to mathematical
equations, and that’s what I utilized.
Mr. Stevens:
[H]ave you had occasion to testify about a process called
retrograde extrapolation?
Dr. Rosenhan:
Yes, sir. . . . it is a mathematical relationship.
Mr. Stevens:
Your Honor, I tender Mr. Rosenhan as an expert in the
field of ethanol ingestion in the body.
The Court:
Mr. Baker, do you have questions of voir dire of his
qualifications?
Mr. Baker:
My first question was for counsel opposite, exactly what
this witness is being offered as an expert in.
Mr. Stevens:
To testify based on the history of this particular case,
what her blood alcohol content would have been at the
time she was operating the motor vehicle based on proof.
Mr. Baker:
Well, Your Honor, I’m not aware of any expertise in that
particular area. If he’s got a particular area that he is
12
offering [him] for, such as retrograde extrapolation . . .
that is something we would be able to respond to.
The Court:
I assume that’s what he is going to testify to, Counsel.
Mr. Baker.
Okay. Well, Your Honor, upon the issue of whether Mr.
Rosenhan is going to be offered . . . for the purpose of
retrograde extrapolation, it’s an irrelevant issue to this
case . . . .
We find that on appeal the State takes the prosecutor’s comment out of context. According
to the above colloquy, Mr. Baker was not objecting to Dr. Rosenhan’s qualifications, but the
precise name of his expertise. We do not find a significant difference between the two
phrases used to describe Dr. Rosenhan’s expertise. “Retrograde extrapolation” is the
mathematical formula used to determine the rate of “ethanol ingestion in the body.”
Obviously, the trial judge and defense counsel were under the impression Dr. Rosenhan was
going to testify about “retrograde extrapolation,” and this is the line of questioning which
preceded the State’s objection. Once this point was clarified, the prosecutor moved on to
discuss the merits of Dr. Rosenhan’s testimony. He made no attempt to challenge Dr.
Rosenhan’s qualifications as an expert in either “ethanol ingestion in the body” or
“retrograde extrapolation.” The State is not allowed to litigate a new issue on appeal; it is
well established that failure to raise an issue in the trial court procedurally bars the issue on
appeal. Daniels v. Bains, 967 So. 2d 77, 81 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
¶20.
Procedural bar notwithstanding, we find Dr. Rosenhan sufficiently qualified as an
expert in “retrograde extrapolation” or “ethanol ingestion in the body.” Discussing
Mississippi’s Daubert standard and Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 regarding the
qualifications of an expert witness, our supreme court has stated:
13
First, the witness must be qualified by virtue of his or her knowledge, skill,
experience or education. Second, the witness’s scientific, technical or other
specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact in understanding or
deciding a fact in issue. In addition, Rule 702 “does not relax the traditional
standards for determining that the witness is indeed qualified to speak an
opinion on a matter within a purported field of knowledge.”
McLemore, 863 So. 2d at 35 (¶7) (internal citations omitted). Dr. Rosenhan is a registered
mechanical engineer with a bachelors and masters of science in mechanical engineering, and
he has done all but his dissertation for a Ph.D. He has taught courses in internal combustion
engines and statistics at Mississippi State University for approximately forty-four years. He
testified that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is essentially an engineering instrument – an infrared
spectrometer. He has engaged in scientific studies of the effect of ethanol on the body, and
while he is not a toxicologist, he has studied “the various relationships between ethanol
ingestion, absorption, elimination, and blood alcohol content in humans.” Additionally, Dr.
Rosenhan stated he has served as an expert witness in DUI cases on blood alcohol content
methods and calculations. Accordingly, we find that the State’s argument that Dr. Rosenhan
is not qualified as an expert in retrograde extrapolation is without merit.
CONCLUSION
¶21.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding
the evidence of Evans’s consumption of alcohol and the expert testimony of Dr. Rosenhan.
Additionally, we reject the State’s argument that Dr. Rosenhan is not qualified as an expert
in retrograde extrapolation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial in
accordance with this opinion.
¶22. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH THIS
14
OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MONROE
COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY
MYERS, P.J., AND GRIFFIS, J. CHANDLER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
CARLTON, J., DISSENTING:
¶23.
The majority opinion states that it reads Porter v. State, 749 So. 2d 250 (Miss. Ct.
App. 1999), to stand for the proposition that in a DUI per se case, the defendant cannot offer
evidence regarding whether or not she was under the influence, impairing her ability to drive
a vehicle. I agree with that portion of the majority’s reading of Porter. However, the
majority further explains that it does not read Porter as holding that in a DUI per se case,6
evidence regarding the consumption of alcohol cannot be introduced to prove whether or not
the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was below the legal limit when she was
operating a motor vehicle. I disagree with this portion of the majority’s reading of Porter,
and I respectfully dissent.
¶24.
This Court examines a trial judge’s admission or exclusion of evidence for abuse of
discretion. Smith v. State, 942 So. 2d 308, 313 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Even if this
Court finds an erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, we will not reverse unless the
error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.” Id.
¶25.
In Porter, this Court found no merit to Porter’s argument that the trial court erred
when it denied Porter the opportunity to offer evidence that his ingestion of alcohol had not
6
The use of the term DUI per se in this opinion refers to a violation of section 63-1130(1)(c), which under the applicable version of that statute is driving with a blood alcohol
content over the legal limit of .08%. See Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(1)(c) (Supp. 2008).
15
impaired his ability to operate his truck. Porter, 749 So. 2d at 254-55 (¶13). In the case
before us, Evans is similarly trying to introduce evidence of ingestion in order to argue that
she was not over the legal limit, even though this is a DUI per se case. Evans was shown to
be over the legal limit through a chemical analysis, and her attempt to bring in evidence of
consumption of alcohol is simply a subterfuge to escape the limitations of the DUI per se
statute and of our holding in Porter.
¶26.
The Court in Porter explained that there was no evidence to weigh against the
reliability of the Intoxilyzer machine’s analysis of his BAC. Porter, 749 So. 2d at 257 (¶24).
Similarly, Evans offers no evidence that the Intoxilyzer was not working properly, was not
calibrated properly, or that the chemical analysis reading was otherwise unreliable. Instead,
Evans sought to introduce evidence of her consumption of alcohol, her particular absorption
rate, her gender, and her weight to argue that she would have tested at a lower BAC had she
been tested at the time she was stopped. This evidence was inadmissible under our ruling
in Porter, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow it.
¶27.
Evans emphasizes the fact that her BAC was not tested until more than one hour after
her arrest. I find that to be a reasonable delay, and I respectfully submit that such a finding
would be supported by legislative intent based upon my review of the statutory guidelines
and case law. Even in DUI cases involving a death, the Legislature requires only that the
defendant’s BAC be tested within two hours, if possible. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-8(1)
(Rev. 2004). In Wash v. State, 790 So. 2d 856, 859 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), this Court
upheld admission of a BAC test which had not been obtained within the two-hour time frame
suggested by the Legislature, stating:
16
The statute provides that the test is to be administered within two hours of the
accident “when possible.” Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-8 (Rev. 2000). The
words "when possible" are relevant here. Were this two[-]hour time frame
necessary to ensure the integrity of the test results, it is doubtful that the
[L]egislature would have included such language in the statute. The trial
judge found that although the blood test was administered more than two
hours after the accident, there was no evidence of deliberate delay on the part
of the officers. We agree, and we see no reason to find that the time lapse
between the accident and the administration of the blood test was prejudicial
to Wash in any way.
There is no evidence of any deliberate delay on the part of the officers in Evans’s case. The
delay was attributed to waiting on a tow truck to tow Evans’s car and the drive back to the
Monroe County Sheriff’s Office.
¶28.
I further disagree with the majority’s reliance on Cowart v. State, 910 So. 2d 726
(Miss. Ct. App. 2005) and Smith v. State, 942 So. 2d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The
majority contends those cases allowed expert testimony – similar to the testimony Evans
sought to introduce – in DUI per se cases which involved a time lapse between when the
defendant was driving and when the BAC test was administered. However, Cowart and
Smith were both charged under Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-11-30(5) (Rev. 2004)
and not under the DUI per se statute. The applicable portion of section 63-11-30(5), which
was at issue in Cowart and Smith, states:
Every person who operates any motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of
subsection (1) of this section and who in a negligent manner causes the death
of another or mutilates, disfigures, permanently disables or destroys the
tongue, eye, lip, nose or any other limb, organ or member of another shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a separate felony for each such death, mutilation,
disfigurement or other injury and shall be committed to the custody of the
State Department of Corrections for a period of time of not less than five (5)
years and not to exceed twenty-five (25) years for each such death, mutilation,
disfigurement or other injury . . . .
17
Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(5). James Cowart was charged with an offense commonly
referred to as DUI manslaughter, under section 63-11-30(5), for causing the death of another
driver in a car accident.7 Cowart, 910 So. 2d at 727 (¶1). James Smith was charged with
aggravated DUI, also under section 63-11-30(5) for causing serious injury to another driver
in an accident.8 Smith, 942 So. 2d at 310 (¶1). Section 63-11-30(5) requires not only a
violation of any subsection of Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-11-30(1)9 but also,
proof that the defendant acted negligently and that his negligence was the cause of the death
or serious injury to the victim. Because negligence and causation must be proven, in
addition to the violation of one of the subsections of section 63-11-30(1), in order to convict
a defendant under section 63-11-30(5), evidence of impairment, and therefore consumption,
would be relevant and admissible in those cases. The facts in Evans’s case are not at all
similar to the facts of Smith and Cowart. Evans’s case is a straight DUI per se case, and
evidence of consumption was inadmissible. Evans was not charged with driving while under
the influence of an intoxicating liquor pursuant to section 63-11-30(1)(a) or charged with
7
The underlying violation of section 63-11-30(1) in Cowart’s case charged a
violation of driving under the influence of alcohol under subsection (1)(a) and under section
(1)(c), the per se portion of the statute. Cowart, 910 So. 2d at 727 (¶1).
8
The underlying violation of section 63-11-30(1) in Smith’s case charged a violation
of subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c), driving under the influence of alcohol. Smith, 942 So. 2d
at 310 (¶1). However, only the per se violation was submitted to the jury.
9
Section 63-11-30(1)(a)-(e) includes: (a) driving while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor; (b) driving while under the influence of any other substance which
impairs one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle; (c) driving with a blood alcohol content of
.08% or higher for those above the legal age to buy alcoholic beverages, or .02% for those
below the legal age to buy alcoholic beverages; (d) driving while under the influence of a
controlled substance, the possession of which is unlawful; or (e) driving with a blood alcohol
content of .04% for persons operating a commercial motor vehicle.
18
driving under the influence of another substance under section 63-11-30(1)(b). She was
charged only with DUI per se under section 63-11-30(1)(c). The Smith and Cowart cases
are section 63-11-30(5) cases, not DUI per se cases; and their holdings are inapplicable here.
¶29.
A review of the records in Cowart and Smith show further factual distinctions
between those cases and Evans’s case. The majority states that the indictment in Cowart
does not specify which subsection of section 63-11-30(1) was charged, but that the language
clearly indicates that the defendant was accused of driving with a BAC greater than .10%.
I agree that the indictment is perhaps lacking with respect to subsection numbers and letters.
However, the language of the indictment reflects that the elements of both subsections 6311-30(1)(a) and (1)(c) were charged in stating that Cowart did “willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, having
ten one-hundredths percent (.10%) or more by weight volume of alcohol in his blood.”
¶30.
The jury instructions submitted by both the defense and the State, which were given
by the court in Cowart, both carried forth that same language from the indictment setting
forth elements of subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). The portion of the indictment charging a
violation of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
constitutes a violation of subsection (1)(a), thereby allowing evidence of impairment and
consumption into evidence. Moreover, such evidence of intoxication and consumption was
indeed presented to the jury. The jury heard evidence of beer cans in Cowart’s truck at the
scene of the wreck, with some of the beers still cold at the time of the wreck. Officers found
beer cans inside and outside the truck, including a beer on the front seat and a bag of beer
cans on the floorboard. Cowart left the scene of the accident. He claimed at trial that he
19
drank three or four beers after leaving the scene, despite statements to law enforcement at
the scene that he bought the beer before the wreck in two different towns and had been to
a bar before the wreck. Cowart’s BAC registered a .16% on the Intoxilyzer. An officer
testified that Cowart told him that he and his boss purchased a twelve-pack of beer after
work and drove back to Forest where his vehicle was parked to drink the twelve-pack of
beer. The officer stated that Cowart told him that he purchased another six-pack of beer,
stopped at a fast-food restaurant to get something to eat, and then traveled home on Highway
21 where the wreck occurred. The officer also testified that the odor of alcohol permeated
out of the vehicle, off both Cowart’s breath and body. Furthermore, the officer testified that
Cowart spontaneously approached him upon his return to the scene of the wreck and said he
was drunk. The officer further testified that, coupled with his admission that he had been
drinking, Cowart’s mannerisms were unsteady, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were
red. The officer testified that, in his opinion, Cowart was intoxicated prior to leaving the
scene of the wreck.
¶31.
Testimony by the toxicologist was offered to refute Cowart’s claim that the three or
four beers he had consumed following the wreck caused his BAC to register .13% on the
Intoxilyzer. The gap in time between the wreck and Cowart’s claim of consumption of three
to four beers after the wreck render the Cowart case factually distinguishable from the case
at bar.
¶32.
Likewise, the indictment in Smith does not specify the subsection of section 63-11-
30(1) the defendant was charged with violating by delineating a subsection letter. However,
the language in the indictment reflects that both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) were charged
20
in the indictment with language stating that Smith did “willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
drive or operate a vehicle in the County of Pearl River, State of Mississippi, at a time when
he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and at a time in which he had ten onehundredths percent (.10%) or more in his blood . . . to wit: .13%.” The indictment in Smith
contains the word “and” between the language charging violations of subsections (1)(a) and
(1)(c), making it clear that both subsections were contained in the indictment. At trial,
evidence of intoxication was presented through testimony that Smith had the odor of alcohol
on his breath, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. A witness also said Smith was drunk and
loud, acted crazy, and cursed at the police. However, at the close of the case, the jury
instructions reflect that only the per se violation was submitted to the jury.
¶33.
There is no explanation in the record as to why both violations were not submitted to
the jury. However, the prosecution may have set forth both violations in the indictment as
alternative theories in the event the BAC results were suppressed or otherwise not admitted
into evidence. The record does reflect that there was a pretrial motion to exclude the BAC
results or suppress the testimony asserting that the defendant’s blood alcohol content would
have been higher at the time of the wreck. However, we do not know why only one theory
was submitted to the jury. Nonetheless, since both subsections were charged by the plain
language of the indictment and evidence relevant to the elements charged therein was
admissible, I find Smith factually distinguishable from the case at bar.
¶34.
Furthermore, while the State’s objections to the defense expert’s qualifications on the
subject of retrograde extrapolation and the human absorption rate of alcohol were, perhaps,
inartful and lacking, I would find that the issue of admissibility of the testimony has been
21
preserved for this Court’s review.10 The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is within
the discretion of the trial judge. Smith, 942 So. 2d at 315 (¶18). We do not reverse the
decision of the trial judge unless his decision “was arbitrary and clearly erroneous,
amounting to an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 316 (¶18). I see no abuse of discretion in the
trial judge’s exclusion of Mr. Rosenhan’s testimony.
¶35.
Mississippi courts apply a modified Daubert standard when ruling on the admission
or exclusion of expert testimony. Id. at 316 (¶20). The Mississippi Supreme Court has
explained the standard as follows:
Under Rule 702, expert testimony should be admitted only if it withstands a
two-pronged inquiry. Kansas City S. Ry. v. Johnson, 798 So. 2d 374, 382
(Miss. 2001). First, the witness must be qualified by virtue of his or her
knowledge, skill experience or education. Second, the witness’s scientific,
technical or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact in
understanding or deciding a fact in issue.
Id. (citing Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 35 (¶7) (Miss. 2003)). Mr.
Rosenhan was an unqualified witness under the first prong of the modified Daubert standard.
The record reflects that Mr. Rosenhan retired from engineering and was teaching statistics
and internal combustion engines at the college level. He indicated that he had studied and
utilized the various relationships between ethanol ingestion, absorption, elimination, and
blood alcohol content in humans. However, he had received no formal medical training.
10
The State made a motion in limine to exclude any evidence from the defense’s
proposed expert. The State noted in its argument that it learned of the proposed expert at
docket call and implied that he had not been provided prior notice of the proposed expert’s
testimony through discovery. The State then moved orally to exclude the testimony of the
expert as irrelevant and inadmissible under Porter. He argued that any such testimony
would be based upon inadmissible facts. He further objected to any expert or lay witness
who would testify as to Evans’s consumption of alcohol. See M.R.E. 701.
22
Mr. Rosenhan received formal training in mechanical engineering, not in the biological
sciences or toxicology. The trial judge has a duty as gatekeeper to make sure that only
reliable scientific information is presented to the court. Mr. Rosenhan was not qualified to
testify regarding toxicology, including the absorption and metabolism of alcohol in the
human body.
¶36.
Moreover, in both Cowart and Smith, the two cases relied upon by the majority as
allowing retrograde-extrapolation testimony in DUI per se cases, the judges in those cases
allowed toxicologists to testify regarding human absorption rates and metabolism of alcohol.
Mr. Rosenhan was not qualified as an expert in toxicology. Moreover, as explained above,
neither Cowart nor Smith was a DUI per se case under section 63-11-30(1)(c).
¶37.
I find Evans’s attempt to enter evidence of her consumption of alcohol in order to
show that her BAC was lower than .08% in the hour before being given the Intoxilyzer test
is actually an effort to circumvent our holding in Porter. The decision whether to admit or
refuse evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. I find no abuse of discretion or
error of law in the trial judge’s application of Porter to this case or in the judge’s exclusion
of Mr. Rosenhan’s testimony. I respectfully dissent and would affirm the conviction and
sentence.
MYERS, P.J., AND GRIFFIS, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
23
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.