Overstreet v. Com.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1975 |
| Citation | 522 S.W.2d 178 |
| Parties | Ronald Dale OVERSTREET, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Anthony M. Wilhoit, Public Defender, Joe A. Jarrell, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, Joseph S. Freeland, Paducah, for appellant.
Ed Hancock, Atty. Gen., Guy C. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Donald Dale Overstreet appeals from a judgment which sentenced him to a term of 15 years in the penitentiary pursuant to a verdict finding him guilty of first-degree involuntary manslaughter, under KRS 435.022(1), in a prosecution arising out of an automobile collision involving Overstreet's car and another, in which an occupant of the other car was killed. Overstreet's sole ground for reversal is that the trial court erred in reading to the jury, over his objection, the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of KRS 189.520, which in substance are that in a prosecution for operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages, evidence that there was 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, as shown by chemical analysis, creates a presumption that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating beverages.
A chemist testified in the instant case that a chemical analysis of Overstreet's blood showed an alcohol content of 0.28 percent. The trial court would not permit the witness to answer questions as to how much alcohol a person would have to consume to produce that percentage, or the amount of alcohol a body would burn up in a particular period of time. However, the court thereupon proceeded to read the statute to the jury.
The statute obviously is intended to facilitate proof of the fact of drunkenness in drunken-driving cases . While proof of the results of the chemical analysis is still required, the statute eliminates the necessity of further expert testimony as to what state of sobriety or insobriety is indicated by the results of the analysis. However, the statute is confined by its terms to prosecutions for the statutory offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating beverages, which is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.
It is our opinion that the foregoing statute, which provides a convenience for the benefit of the prosecution in a limited type of misdemeanor case, cannot reasonably or fairly be extended to provide the same convenience for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Com., No. 2002-SC-0486-MR.
...805 S.W.2d 102, 103 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Burge, Ky., 947 S.W.2d 805, 811 (1996); Overstreet v. Commonwealth, Ky., 522 S.W.2d 178, 179 (1975). Nor did any witness attempt to testify to the effect that a particular blood alcohol level might have had on Appella......
-
Wells v. Com.
...only presumptions of fact, essential to establish a crime, of which the trial court is permitted to inform the jury. Overstreet v. Commonwealth, Ky., 522 S.W.2d 178 (1975); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 483 S.W.2d 122 The following instruction was given on the charge of assault in the first ......
-
Morgan v. Shirley, 89-5992
...of alcohol...."2 The presumption could not be used in prosecutions for involuntary manslaughter or other felony cases. Overstreet v. Commonwealth, 522 S.W.2d 178 (Ky.1975).3 The State of California has lowered its intoxication level from 0.10% to 0.08%, and California's alcohol-related road......
-
Walden v. Com., 88-SC-860-MR
...court to permit this evidence on the vehicular homicide charge, and to refuse the requested limiting admonition. Overstreet v. Commonwealth, Ky., 522 S.W.2d 178 (1975) so holds, "[T]he statute is confined by its terms to prosecutions for the statutory offense of operating a vehicle under th......