Irby v. State, 49 So. 3d 94

Irby was convicted by a Clarke County jury of DUI maiming and sentenced to 25 years as a habitual offender.
The collision occurred May 10, 2008 between Irby’s Ford Ranger and the Millers’ Dodge van; Justin Miller sustained permanent brain injury and disability.
Olivia Miller testified Irby smelled of alcohol after the crash; Irby’s truck showed tire marks consistent with driving in the wrong lane.
Irby’s blood tested positive for benzodiazepines (alprazolam), hydrocodone, and cocaine metabolite; toxicology indicated impairment could arise from these substances.
Deputy Ivey obtained Irby’s blood with Irby’s written and oral consent after informing him of his right to refuse; the consent form stated blood results could be provided to law enforcement.
The trial court admitted the blood-analysis evidence over objections; on appeal Irby challenged admissibility, confrontation rights, and sufficiency of the evidence; the State contested by arguing waiver and alignment with consent and chain-of-custody considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether blood evidence was improperly admitted.	Irby contends consent was not voluntary and nurse testimony on voluntariness was lacking.	Irby argues lack of proper foundation for consent, and that testing proceeded under improper basis.	Blood evidence properly admitted; consent issue not properly raised; waivers and trial court discretion support admission.
Whether Irby’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were protected.	Defense sought cross-examination of Ivey about consent motive/intent.	State argued consent was already established; cross-examination on motive irrelevant.	No error; the trial court limited questioning appropriately and consent was effectively established.
Whether the verdict was supported by the evidence or against the weight of the evidence.	State argues overwhelming evidence supported conviction.	Irby claims insufficient evidence and conflicting testimony regarding impairment and negligence.	Evidence supported guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt and did not constitute an abuse of discretion in denying new trial/JNOV.
Whether Irby’s indictment/claim was procedurally barred and properly raised on rehearing.	Irby raised a new issue on rehearing about impairment allegations.	Issue procedurally barred; not raised timely and cannot be raised for first time on rehearing.	Procedurally barred; rehearing issue not entertained.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw intrudes constitutional rights; probable cause required for forceful draw)
Penick v. State, 440 So.2d 547 (Miss. 1983) (valid consent requires knowledgeable waiver of rights)
Graves v. State, 708 So.2d 858 (Miss. 1997) (knowledgeable waiver defined; burden on defendant to show lack of knowledge)
Graves v. State, 492 So.2d 562 (Miss. 1986) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings; standard of review)
Comby v. State, 901 So.2d 1282 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (consent voluntary where witnesses testify outside jury; lack of proper foundation discussed)
McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850 (Miss. 2000) (probable cause requirement for blood sample)
Jones v. Miss. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 607 So.2d 23 (Miss. 1991) (consent validity and voluntariness framework)
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1946) (voluntary consent rules; authority for consent without warrant)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (necessity of knowing waiver for consent to be voluntary)