Custer v. Oklahoma City, A--16204
| Decision Date | 24 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. A--16204,A--16204 |
| Citation | 481 P.2d 788 |
| Parties | Patricia Lorene CUSTER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of OKLAHOMA CITY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Wayne Hagle, Asst. Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.
Ron Collier, Asst. Municipal Counselor, for defendant in error.
Patricia Lorene Custer, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City for the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor; her punishment was set at thirty (30) days imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Briefly stated, the evidence and stipulations at the trial revealed that on April 5, 1969, James Oglesby and Skip Ball were travelling on North 39th Expressway in Oklahoma City. They observed a car cross the highway in front of them at a high rate of speed, narrowly missing their car. The car crossed the center median and proceeded east in the west-bound lane. The car weaved from lane to lane before turning into a service station lot where it struck a parked pickup. It came back onto the road and subsequently struck a highway sign and stopped in the center of the median. The defendant was identified as the driver of the car.
Officer Cline arrived at the scene at approximately 1:50 a.m. The defendant was seated under the steering wheel of the automobile. He asked her to step from the car and observed that she was slightly off balance and staggered as she walked. The officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol about her person and noted that her speech was slurred. He testified that she was, in his opinion, very intoxicated. The defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the city jail. A Breathalyzer Test was administered to defendant by Sergeant Liles.
The parties stipulated that Sergeant Liles would testify that he administered a Breathalyzer Test to the defendant according to the standards set down by the Oklahoma Board of Chemical Tests. The test result was .15 percent.
Sergeant Coffia, the supervisor for chemical tests of the Oklahoma City Police Department, testified that Sergeant Liles was a licensed, qualified Breathalyzer operator. He testified that the machine used in administering the test to the defendant was in proper working order at the time of the test.
The defendant testified that she was enroute to assist a friend making an inventory of a business which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. State
...breathalyzer test would constitute material evidence with a direct bearing upon defendant's guilt or innocence. See Custer v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 788 (1971). This is not to suggest, however, that a similar significance would automatically attach to each component in the breatha......