Contact a local lawyer now for a FREE consultation!  

(800)384-5297

DAVID MURRELL WHEELING v. CITY OF ROANOKE
Court of Appeals of Virginia
2 Va. App. 42

On March 8, 1984, Ruth George’s automobile was parked on First Street in the City of Roanoke. George was in the Capitol Restaurant. Wheeling was in the restaurant also.  Officer B. L. Booker arrived at the restaurant between forty-five and seventy-five minutes after the accident. He discovered that Wheeling had struck George’s automobile with his own in attempting to maneuver out of his parking spot. In talking with Wheeling, he detected a strong odor of alcohol.

Wheeling stated that he had consumed six to eight beers, but had not consumed any alcohol since the accident. Wheeling also admitted to driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. About ten minutes after his arrival, Officer Booker administered a series of field tests, and concluded that Wheeling had slurred speech, watery eyes, a pale complexion, and a swaying, unsteady gait. Officer Booker then arrested Wheeling for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Issue:

Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the defendant intoxicated at the time of the accident?

The court observed that Wheeling made two admissions to Officer Booker that are critical to our determination. First, Wheeling told Officer Booker that he had consumed six to eight beers that day. Second, Wheeling stated that he had not had anything alcoholic to drink since the accident.   Evidence of consumption of “around seven” beers during a period of less than five hours preceding an accident was held to be sufficient to raise an inference of intoxication.  Wheeling’s admissions to Officer Booker and the testimony of Officer Booker in regard to Wheeling’s appearance and lack of coordination, coupled with the inference of intoxication were sufficient to support the conviction.

Conclusion:

The court held that defendant’s admissions and the officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s appearance and lack of coordination at the accident scene were sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the evidence was sufficient even though defendant testified at trial that he had drunk some whiskey after the accident.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Originally published here.

Understanding DUI Scientific Evidence provides an authoritative, insider’s perspective on new scientific and technological developments in DUI criminal defense. Featuring leading DUI defense practitioners and experts from across the country, this volume offers the reader new information on emerging research related to breath, blood, and urine alcohol analysis, standard field sobriety testing, retrograde extrapolation, accident reconstruction science, and alcohol detection devices. With the National Academy of Sciences questioning the reliability of forensic science, these authors walk the reader through various validity issues with respect to current methods for obtaining and analyzing alcohol evidence and discuss the role this evidence plays in a DUI case. From reviewing pre-existing conditions that may affect gait and nystagmus to examining the functioning errors of Intoxilyers, SCRAM, and TAD machines, these leaders call current protocols into question and share advice on using these inconsistencies as a part of a legal strategy. The different niches represented and the breadth of perspectives presented enable readers to get inside some of the great legal minds of today, as these experienced lawyers offer up their thoughts around the keys to navigating this complex and constantly developing area of law.Inside the Minds provides readers with proven business intelligence from C-Level executives and lawyers (Chairman, CEO, CFO, CMO, Partner) from the world’s most respected companies and firms nationwide. Each chapter is comparable to an essay/thought leadership piece and is a future-oriented look at where an industry, profession, or topic is heading and the most important issues for the future. Each author has been selected based upon their experience and C-level standing within the professional community.Chapters Include:1. “The Law and Science of Retrograde Extrapolation” – Lawrence E. Wines2. “Forensic Gait Analysis” – Lawrence E. Wines3. “Accident Reconstruction and Investigation” – Lawrence E. Wines 4. “Science Underlying Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus” – Lawrence E. Wines 5. “DUI Evidence and the National Academy of Science Report on Forensic Science” – Ted Vosk6. “Forensic Toxicology of Urine- and Blood-Alcohol Levels” – Alfred E. Staubus, Pharm.D., Ph.D. and Robert J. Belloto Jr., Ph.D.7. “The Intoxilyzer 8000: Simply an Evolution, Not a Revolution” – Victor W. Carmody, Kevin T. Stewart, and Lance O. Mixon8. “BI TAD and SCRAM X” – Lawrence E. Wines9. “GERD Cases” – Lawrence E. WinesAppendices Include:Appendix A: Forensic Gait Analysis ChecklistAppendix B: Accident Reconstruction Math and FormulasAppendix C: Some Accident Reconstruction Terms DefinedAppendix D: Checklist for HGN Issues & Guide for Video AnalysisAppendix E: Margin of Error—Brief for Administrative Licensing HearingAppendix F: Margin of Error—Appellate Brief for Adverse Administrative Licensing Hearing RulingAppendix G: Cumulative Forensic Lab Failures—Brief to Suppress in Criminal ProceedingAppendix H: SCRAM/TAD Checklist/Questionnaire for Defense AttorneyAppendix I: GERD Checklist

Understanding DUI Scientific Evidence, 2010 Ed.: Leading Lawyers on Analyzing New Forensic Science, Challenging Testing Procedures and Results, and Consulting Experts for Defense Arguments

www.StateLawTV.com. On July 1, 2010 VA implemented a new speed limit. Reckless driving speeding lawyer Bob Battle talks about this law and how it could be a trap to reckless driving charges.