Legality of DWI Questionable

[Antigone*]

Funny things, confessions...

 

[ellemouse]

More Case Precedence...maybe??

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
WESTERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent,
v.
BILLY JACK HATFIELD,
Appellant. )
)
)
)
)
)
) WD72468
FILED: August 30, 2011
In his sole Point Relied On, Hatfield argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving while intoxicated because the State failed to establish that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was operating a motor vehicle.1 We agree.
As the name of the offense indicates, to support a conviction under § 577.010 the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was (1) driving (2) while (3) intoxicated. Each of these words has significance, and imposes a separate evidentiary burden on the State.2 Here, Hatfield does not dispute that the State‟s evidence was sufficient to establish two of these critical facts: (1) that he drove the vehicle at some time before Deputy Shanks arrived; and (2) that he was intoxicated when the deputy arrested him. He argues, however, that no evidence established that he drove the car while he was intoxicated.

 

[ellemouse]

Actually, I didn't misread it as stating an officer needs to see him driving; however, in this case, the court documents have already listed the officer as the only witness, so what does that mean? (I do believe that there has to be SOME proof, somewhere, that a defendant actually operated--which includes had control of, was behind the wheel, etc--a vehicle WHILE intoxicated... I'm just asking more knowledgeable....what does this mean, specifically???)

BTW 9 years as a paralegal was 9 years ago...so it's primarily irrelevant.

I thought this was a site to aid/assist/advise not to discourage criticize and judge.....if there's an actual attorney who knows Missouri DWI laws, I'd truly be grateful for your thoughts after overview; if not, my research and inquiries certainly have no detriment to my husband's Court case.

 

[Antigone*]

Actually, I didn't misread it as stating an officer needs to see him driving; however, in this case, the court documents have already listed the officer as the only witness, so what does that mean? (I do believe that there has to be SOME proof, somewhere, that a defendant actually operated--which includes had control of, was behind the wheel, etc--a vehicle WHILE intoxicated... I'm just asking more knowledgeable....what does this mean, specifically???)

BTW 9 years as a paralegal was 9 years ago...so it's primarily irrelevant.

I thought this was a site to aid/assist/advise not to discourage criticize and judge.....if there's an actual attorney who knows Missouri DWI laws, I'd truly be grateful for your thoughts after overview; if not, my research and inquiries certainly have no detriment to my husband's Court case.

Ms. Paralegal, you really should read the terms of service of the websites you sign up for.

 

[Just Blue]

Actually, I didn't misread it as stating an officer needs to see him driving; however, in this case, the court documents have already listed the officer as the only witness, so what does that mean? (I do believe that there has to be SOME proof, somewhere, that a defendant actually operated--which includes had control of, was behind the wheel, etc--a vehicle WHILE intoxicated... I'm just asking more knowledgeable....what does this mean, specifically???)

BTW 9 years as a paralegal was 9 years ago...so it's primarily irrelevant.

I thought this was a site to aid/assist/advise not to discourage criticize and judge.....if there's an actual attorney who knows Missouri DWI laws, I'd truly be grateful for your thoughts after overview; if not, my research and inquiries certainly have no detriment to my husband's Court case.

Go to your boss in the morning. Ask his/Her thoughts.

 

[ellemouse]

Antigone reply

I assume that means you're not a Missouri attorney with sufficient knowledge/understanding of DWI laws to advise one? Thanks anyway.

 

[dave33]

Actually, I didn't misread it as stating an officer needs to see him driving; however, in this case, the court documents have already listed the officer as the only witness, so what does that mean? (I do believe that there has to be SOME proof, somewhere, that a defendant actually operated--which includes had control of, was behind the wheel, etc--a vehicle WHILE intoxicated... I'm just asking more knowledgeable....what does this mean, specifically???)

BTW 9 years as a paralegal was 9 years ago...so it's primarily irrelevant.

I thought this was a site to aid/assist/advise not to discourage criticize and judge.....if there's an actual attorney who knows Missouri DWI laws, I'd truly be grateful for your thoughts after overview; if not, my research and inquiries certainly have no detriment to my husband's Court case.

Well, before you can even start looking up cases and deciding what is relevant, you need to see the police report. It is sometimes amazing how much the two versions differ. So, it is important to first find out what the OFFICER is claiming as the reason he was arrested for driving while drunk. Than you maybe able to help with some research, although the reality is, whatever you do will probably be in vain, but I certainly understand the concepy of "needing to do something". goodluck.