Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Spicer v. City of Fayetteville
Citations: 284 Ark. 315; 681 S.W.2d 369; 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1971Docket: CR 84-144
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; December 21, 1984; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
John I. Purtle, Justice, presided over an appeal following the appellant's conviction under the Omnibus DWI Act (Ark. Stat. Ann. 75-1031.1; 75-1045; 75-2501 through 75-2514 (Supp. 1983)). The appellant raised four points on appeal: 1. Allegation of separation of powers violation. 2. Claims of due process violation due to vagueness in the statute. 3. Insufficiency of evidence for conviction. 4. Challenge to the admission of breathalyzer test results. The court did not address the separation of powers argument due to a lack of sufficient development in the trial court. The court noted that the other three points had been recently resolved against the appellant in prior cases (Lovell v. State and Long v. State). On May 7, 1983, the appellant was stopped for speeding, and the officer suspected intoxication after observing him perform poorly on two of three field sobriety tests. The officer characterized the appellant as “moderately” intoxicated and administered a breath test at the Fayetteville Police Department, which indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.21. Although the test sample was not preserved, the appellant had been under observation for over 30 minutes before the test. Regarding the due process claim, the court found the statute sufficiently clear, citing prior rulings that addressed the same issue. The evidence was deemed sufficient, supported by the testimony regarding the appellant's intoxication and BAC level. For the breathalyzer test admission, the court acknowledged that while the notification provided to the appellant about his right to request a different type of test could have been clearer, it did not constitute error since he did not make such a request. The law did not mandate police to administer a second test but required them to inform the appellant of his rights. The court found no evidence of defect in the breath test. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the conviction.