Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

488 So. 2d 8

Grimes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided January 7, 1986

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1986-01-07

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1999

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"A search of D.U.I. cases in Alabama reveals that a police officer is allowed to give his opinion as to the sobriety vel non of the appellant. See Pierson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 452 , 18 So.2d 578 (1944); Pate v. State, 35 Ala.App. 586 , 50 So.2d 796 (1951); Gladden v. State, 36 Ala. App. 197 , 54 So.2d 607 (1951); Durham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 341 , 83 So.2d 260 (1955); Holloway v. City of Birmingham, 56 Ala.App. 545 , 323 So.2d 726 (1975); Ex parte Bush, 474 So.2d 168 (Ala.1985)."”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 575 So. 2d 101 - Malone v. City of Silverhill, 599 So. 2d 1246 - Reuther v. City of Leeds

Relies on 474 So. 2d 168 - Bush v. City of Troy · 337 So. 2d 321 - Patton v. City of Decatur · 455 So. 2d 944 - Swann v. City of Huntsville

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2Pamela M. Grimes was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The jury found her "guilty as charged" and, following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge fixed punishment at a fine of $500.00 and thirty (30) days in the county jail, all but forty-eight (48) hours of which was suspended.

¶3Our review of this record uncovers no problem with the weight and sufficiency of the evidence from which the appellant was adjudged guilty. Prescott v. State, 44 Ala. App. 670,219 So.2d 655 (1969); Pace v. City of Montgomery, 455 So.2d 180 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Swann v. City of Huntsville,455 So.2d 944 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Hanners v. State, 461 So.2d 43 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984).

¶4

I
The only issue raised on appeal is whether a police officer may testify in a D.U.I. prosecution that, in his opinion, the defendant was intoxicated. Appellant argues that such amounts to an opinion on the ultimate issue of fact and it is, therefore, inadmissible.

¶5In this cause the prosecutor asked the arresting officer if he had an opinion concerning whether or not the appellant was intoxicated. Over objection by defense *9 counsel, the witness was allowed to answer the question and stated that it was his opinion that the appellant "was intoxicated" on the night in question. The prosecution brought forth this testimony only after eliciting evidence of how appellant was driving, that the officer smelled alcohol on her and in the car and that there were empty beer cans in the car. Also evidence was introduced that the officer administered a photoelectric intoximeter test and that this appellant had a reading of .157 on the test. See Patton v. City of Decatur,337 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1976).

¶6A search of D.U.I. cases in Alabama reveals that a police officer is allowed to give his opinion as to the sobriety vel non of the appellant. See Pierson v. State, 31 Ala. App. 452,18 So.2d 578 (1944); Pate v. State, 35 Ala. App. 586, 50 So.2d 796 (1951); Gladden v. State, 36 Ala. App. 197, 54 So.2d 607 (1951);Durham v. State, 38 Ala. App. 341, 83 So.2d 260 (1955); Hollowayv. City of Birmingham, 56 Ala. App. 545, 323 So.2d 726 (1975);Ex parte Bush, 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985).

¶7We have found no error in this record and, therefore, are of the opinion that this cause should be and is, hereby, affirmed.

¶8AFFIRMED.

¶9All the Judges concur.

/488/so2d/8 · .json · Public domain