189 So. 3d 675
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- On March 24, 2012, Ridgeland officers stopped Lynda Robinette after observing speeding, following too closely (about one car length at ~50 mph), and rolling through a stop sign.
- Officers smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes and some slurred speech, and found an opened wine bottle in the car; a preliminary breath test was positive and an Intoxilyzer result was .12.
- Robinette claimed only minimal sips during a parade and later a 12-oz cup of wine; she has medical conditions (gastroparesis, Meniere’s disease, seizure disorder) affecting belching, regurgitation, balance, and nystagmus.
- Defense expert Dr. Hayne performed a retrograde extrapolation (estimating BAC ~.03), and testified that burping/regurgitation from gastroparesis could have contaminated breath samples and produced artificially high Intoxilyzer readings.
- Procedural history: conviction in municipal court; de novo trial in county court resulting in convictions for DUI (common-law), running a stop sign, and following too closely; Madison County Circuit Court affirmed. Robinette appealed to this Court. The City did not file an appellee’s brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for common-law DUI | Robinette: evidence insufficient; Intoxilyzer unreliable due to burping/gastric reflux and medical conditions; retrograde extrapolation showed low BAC | State: officers observed driving infractions, odor of alcohol, signs of impairment, positive PBT and Intoxilyzer; medical conditions aggravated by alcohol | Affirmed — issue procedurally barred (no renewal of directed verdict after defense evidence); on merits, evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution |
| Sufficiency for following too closely (tailgating) | Robinette: State failed to prove imprudent following distance | State: officer observed ~one car length at ~50 mph, brake tapping, and DUI which supported imprudent operation | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support tailgating conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Chatman v. State, 761 So.2d 851 (recognizing appellee failure to brief is not automatic reversal if affirmable with confidence)
- Page v. State, 990 So.2d 760 (directed verdict preservation rule for sufficiency challenges)
- Wright v. State, 540 So.2d 1 (same procedural preservation principle)
- Moore v. State, 131 So.3d 1228 (failure to renew directed verdict waives sufficiency claim)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; view facts in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Gilpatrick v. State, 991 So.2d 130 (definition of common-law DUI)
- Varvaris v. Perreault, 813 So.2d 750 (appellee default by not filing brief treated as confession unless court can confidently affirm)
- Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 458 So.2d 714 (same principle regarding appellee brief failure)
- Taylor v. Kennedy, 914 So.2d 1260 (appellant must create sufficient doubt to preclude confident affirmance)