Jan 17, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
Impeachment by Evidence of Crime
Generally, evidence of past actions is inadmissible at trial, especially in the case of a criminal defendant. An exception to this rule is when evidence is offered for impeachment, i.e. to question the truthfulness of a witness. A common form of evidence offered for impeachment is that the witness has committed a crime. Rules of evidence concerning this rule vary by state to state. South Carolina Rule of Evidence 609 provides a fairly specific rule. SCRE 609(a) reads:
(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and
(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
The News: Broadnax
(more…)
Jan 15, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
An intoxicated Rock Hill man’s pants fell to the ground when authorities confronted him Saturday after he drove his car into a curb before registering a .23 blood alcohol level, police say.
A driver called police to report that a reckless driver in front of them hit a curb at the 700 block of Heckle Boulevard before pulling into a restaurant and then parking in the street’s median, according to a Rock Hill Police report. When officers arrived, the driver, got out the car and stood in front of police. That’s when his pants fell to the ground, the report states. The defendant failed three different field sobriety tests and registered a .23 blood alcohol concentration after a breath test. The legal limit in South Carolina is .08.
Nobody wants to see himself embarrassed in front of his community by having his drunken antics and driving under the influence (DUI) arrest being read in the newspaper by everyone the next morning. Unfortunately, once the person is arrested and charged with DUI, little can be done to stop the public from being kept in the dark on the charges. The assistance of a lawyer can greatly help to mitigate the stress created by the harsh public disdain DUI charges bring by seeking to reach the best possible outcome for the client.
Whatever the case may be, and whatever type of “DUI” you have been charged with, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to have your claim evaluated. We are licesnsed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Jan 14, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
A recent South Carolina Supreme Court opinion, State v. Syllester, appears to clarify some contours of how SC appellate courts will have to read the Fourth Amendment, specifically the weight of anonymous tips and the plain-view/plain-touch doctrine. Before we get to the new opinion, you can check out this page for a quick refresher on searches and seizures.
In Syllester, police in Florence County received an anonymous call alleging that an African-American male on a bicycle was selling drugs in a predominantly minority neighborhood, known to local law enforcement as suffering a high crime rate and drug traffic. Two sheriff’s deputies approached Syllester, who met the caller’s vague description, on foot, although there was no indication of illegal activity aside from the call. When Syllester and his associate saw the two deputies approaching them, they ran. The deputies called out to Syllester to stop, and they chased him down and tackled him. They stood Syllester up and searched him. A tennis ball fell out of his pocket. A deputy picked up the tennis ball, and seeing a slit in it, massaged the ball and found a bag that appeared to contain cocaine.
(more…)
Jan 13, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
The York County Sheriff’s Office received a $250,701 grant to start a Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Team, officials announced Friday.
The grant money will pay the salaries of two deputies, along with new patrol cars and equipment, according to sheriff’s officials.
The DUI enforcement team will dedicate all of its time to combat drunk driving in York County. The officers on the team will work closely with other agencies in the 16th circuit law enforcement network participating in programs such as “Sober or Slammer” and “The 100 Deadly Days of Summer.” Team members will also spend time educating the public about impaired driving at public events and schools.
With police officers stepping up their enforcement techniques, it is becoming increasingly important for the average citizen charged with DUI to know their rights under the law. Any person under South Carolina law can be charged with a felony DUI, even if such incident is the first DUI offense charged to that person. Under the S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2945, “(A) A person who, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs, drives a motor vehicle and when driving a motor vehicle does any act forbidden by law or neglects any duty imposed by law in the driving of the motor vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes great bodily injury or death to a person other than himself, is guilty of the offense of felony driving under the influence and, upon conviction, must be punished.”
The penalties for pleading guilty or being convicted under the felony DUI statute are characterized “(1) by a mandatory fine of not less than five thousand one hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand one hundred dollars and mandatory imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than fifteen years when great bodily injury results;(2) by a mandatory fine of not less than ten thousand one hundred dollars nor more than twenty-five thousand one hundred dollars and mandatory imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than twenty-five years when death results. A part of the mandatory sentences required to be imposed by this section must not be suspended, and probation must not be granted for any portion.” Based on the final sentence quoted above in the statute, probation is not even an option for any person convicted or pleading guilty to charges under the felony DUI statute in South Carolina, even persons who are first time offenders of the statute. According to the S.C. Code Ann. §56-5-2945(B), great bodily injury as used in the statute includes “protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Thus, since the common protracted is commonly thought to mean to prolong or draw out an event or incident, loss of life or limb is not a necessary prerequisite for a finding of guilty under the statute. The victim may fully recover from the injuries suffered at the hands of the defendant, but as long as the victim has an injury that will most likely cause him impairment of one of his bodily parts or organs, a defendant can be convicted under this felony DUI statute and would face some type of mandatory incarceration sentence.
Thus, the role of a lawyer becomes most important to those charged under the South Carolina felony DUI statute. Whatever the case may be, and whatever type of “DUI” you have been charged with, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to have your claim evaluated. We are licesnsed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Jan 13, 2013 | Car Accidents, Uncategorized
No one wants to get into a car accident in the first place, and matters are made even worse when the other driver doesn’t have adequate insurance coverage. The best scenario in that situation is that a driver has uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Even then, a driver must worry that his insurance company, as his UIM carrier, will dispute liability. A recent South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion illustrates how complicated matters can become in what one might think should be a straightforward car accident case. It also reveals some of the interesting decisions that a state might make when trying to regulate who, when, and how folks are compensated following a car accident.
In that case, Lincoln General v. Progressive Northern, the practical issue was which gargantuan insurance company would end up paying for damage caused by the negligent driver in a car accident. One of these insurance companies, the trail court plaintiff, was the UIM carrier, who had already paid up (for the injuries caused by the negligent driver). The other was the insurance company who had granted a policy to the owner of the negligently driven car. The policy, however, had an “endorsement” specifically excepting coverage of an individual in the policy holder’s household whose driver’s license had been revoked by the SC DMV. That sets up the legal issue: whether an insurance carrier must provide coverage despite a “named driver endorsement” (i.e. a provision excepting a named driver).
The policy backdrop here is that South Carolina law will require liability insurance companies to pay innocently injured drivers except in very limited cases, whether the policy purports to exclude coverage or not. The idea is that insurance companies should bear the loss, rather than the not-at-fault driver, whenever possible.
This case, however, deals with a specific exception made by South Carolina in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (the MVFRA) for these “named driver endorsements.” Realizing that if insurance companies knew that anybody in a household would end up being covered in the event of an accident, insurance rates might become very expensive for drivers who had someone with a revoked license and bad driving record in their home, the SC legislature allows individuals to add to their policy a named driver endorsement, to specifically exclude the driver with a revoked license.
Despite the MVFRA clearly making this exception, the trial court read the MVFRA as generally requiring coverage up to state minimum policy limits in all cases. The Court of Appeals rejected this because of the MVFRA’s clear exception for drivers whose licenses had been revoked.
The takeaway here for anyone who isn’t a subrogation lawyer is that named driver endorsements for folks whose licenses have been revoked will be respected and that UIM litigation is sometimes quite complicated.
The complete opinion is included below the fold.
(more…)
Jan 7, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
DWI’s in North Carolina are no longer limited to just “driving while intoxicated;” apparently, after the conclusion in State v. Dellinger in 1985, North Carolina residents can also be charged with a “RWI,” or riding horses while intoxicated. State v. Dellinger, 73 N.C. App. 685 (1985).
I jest of course as the charge being called something different; however the result is the same: if you are caught riding a horse while intoxicated, you can be arrested and charged with a “DWI.” In Dellinger, the defendant was convicted for driving while impaired, based upon his riding of a horse down a secondary street. His blood alcohol concentration was at a 0.18, .10 degrees over the legal limit. The court’s rationale was to apply the same traffic laws to a person riding an animal, or having an animal pull a carriage or any sort of vehicle, should be held to the same standard as those simply driving vehicles. Moreover, the definition of “vehicle,” was left broad by legislature, implicating that horses are vehicles within the meaning of North Carolina’s General Statute 20-138.1, the statute that prohibits impaired driving. N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-138.1(2011).
Subsequently, the legislature acted a few years after the Dellinger conclusion, and made an express determination that a person should not be held to the same standards as one convicted of driving while impaired for riding a horse. The court also tossed around the idea of eliminating bicycles and lawnmowers from the definition of a “vehicle,” as well.
In 2006, the issue was brought to the legislature’s attention again for inactivity, and legislature finally removed “bicycle and lawnmower” from the definition of the prescribed vehicle that can yield the “driver” a DWI.
Oddly however, the legislature did not remove horse riding from the modes of transportation in question. They did not examine and amend the definition which still including horses, as well as failing to repeal North Carolina’s General Statute 20-171, which help aid with definition to begin with. N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-171(2011).
Thus, as of this date, horses (and a presumably other animals) will remain in the definition of “vehicle,” for the purposes of issuing a DWI. Remember not to drink and drive, nor drink and ride according to this strange southern statute.
Whatever the case may be, and whatever type of “DWI” you have been charged with, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to have your claim evaluated. We are licesnsed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
