Graham v. State
2012 Ark. App. 90
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Graham was convicted of driving while intoxicated by a Chicot County jury.
- Trooper Byrd stopped Graham on July 17, 2010, for seat-belt and tail-light violations; he observed signs of impairment.
- Graham admitted drinking, failed three field-sobriety tests, and breath tests showed .132 then .125 final.
- Graham was read a rights form; he initialed understanding all parts and refused an additional test where there was no space to initial for that right.
- The defense challenged the breath-test admissibility and the jury instructions; the court admitted the breath-test results and gave the model jury instruction.
- The court affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence of intoxication and no abuse of discretion in admitting the breath test or in the jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of breath-alcohol test results | Graham argues 5-65-204(e) requires explicit advisement of an additional test. | State contends substantial compliance; form and testimony supported admission. | No abuse of discretion; admission proper. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intoxication | Graham contends lack of clear and substantial danger evidence. | State points to officer observations, admissions, and BAC over 0.08. | Substantial evidence supports conviction. |
| Proffered jury instructions vs. model instruction | Proffers correctly stated law and removed reference to testing/analysis. | Model instruction accurately reflects law; omissions were permissible. | No abuse; model instruction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196 (1999) (observations of officer testimony admissible to prove intoxication)
- Isbell v. State, 326 Ark. 17 (1996) (credibility and weight for witnesses reside with jury)
- Reynolds v. State, 96 Ark.App. 360 (2006) (substantial compliance suffices for rights advisement)
- Beasley v. State, 47 Ark.App. 92 (1994) (DWI elements focus on actual physical control; not required to show hazardous driving)
- Jones v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 403 (2011) (phrasing changes to 5-65-103 do not render model instruction misleading)