Andino v. State
125 So. 3d 700
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Andino was convicted of felony DUI causing death and sentenced to 20 years in the MDOC.
- Appellant challenged the denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.
- The fatal crash occurred when Andino allegedly failed to yield at a green-light intersection on Fitzgeralds Boulevard in Tunica County.
- Katherine Root survived and testified that she had the right of way; Patricia Roper was killed in the collision.
- Andino’s blood alcohol content tested at .14% after the accident.
- Casino surveillance showed Andino drinking prior to the incident and leaving the casino around 11:35 a.m.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intoxication and negligence | Andino argues evidence fails to prove intoxication at the time and negligent cause of death. | Andino contends expert testimony undermines intoxication and insufficient negligence proof. | Evidence sufficient; jury could find intoxication and negligence. |
| Statutory compliance with blood-alcohol testing timing | State complied with testing; delay was permitted by 'if possible' language and no prejudice shown. | Any delay or lack of testing for Root violates 63-11-8 and undermines evidence. | Test performed under probable cause; delay not prejudicial; statute satisfied. |
| Requirement of an accident-reconstruction expert | State need not present an accident-reconstruction expert to prove negligence. | Absence of reconstruction expert weakens negligence proof. | No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence to prove negligence without expert reconstruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkerson v. State, 731 So.2d 1173 (Miss. 1999) (elements of DUI homicide and standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (sufficiency standard: beyond a reasonable doubt; each element)
- Hedrick v. State, 637 So.2d 834 (Miss. 1994) (definition of DUI elements and statutory framework)
- McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850 (Miss. 2000) (blood test admissibility when incident to arrest or with probable cause)
- Testan v. State, 44 So.3d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (interpretation of 'if possible' in testing requirement; lack of prejudice)
- Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (procedural bar for arguments without authority)