Muir v. State

The trial court erred in charging that a chemical analysis of a person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance shall be considered valid if the analysis was performed according to approved methods.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jamie P. Muir appeals from her convictions of speeding, driving under the influence to the extent she was a less safe driver, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1, and driving with an alcohol concentration greater than 0.10 grams, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5. All of her enumerations of error relate to jury charges given or refused by the trial court. Because we agree that the trial court erroneously charged the jury, we must reverse Muir’s less safe conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1, reverse her per se conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5, affirm her speeding conviction, vacate her merged sentence, and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The record shows that Muir was stopped by a City of Atlanta police officer for speeding 55 mph in 35 mph zone. When the police officer smelled “a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath and person,” he asked her if she had had anything to drink. When she told him that she had drunk “three to four beers,” he asked her to step out of the car and participate in a series of field sobriety tests. The police officer testified that she had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. When Muir performed the field sobriety tests horizontal gaze nystagmus, nine-step walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and a preliminary breath test, the police officer detected clues from each test demonstrating that she was under the influence of alcohol. He then arrested her for driving under the influence of alcohol, gave her the implied consent warning, and tested her breath on an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. The machine revealed blood alcohol concentrations of 0.125 and 0.115 grams. The officer further testified that, in his opinion, Muir was a less safe driver that evening based upon the “totality of the circumstances, the subject’s less-than-safe driving; her speeding; her bloodshot eyes; her slurred speech; her performance on the field evaluation. . . .”

Muir v. State

The trial court erred in charging that a chemical analysis of a person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance shall be considered valid if the analysis was performed according to approved methods.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report