Yost v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-0415,88-0415 |
| Citation | 542 So.2d 419,14 Fla. L. Weekly 989 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 989 Kenneth YOST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Coburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction and departure sentence of five years' imprisonment for the offense of felony DWI, in violation of section 316.1931, Florida Statutes (1985).
Appellant has presented six points on appeal. The first point, based upon the constitutionality of the DWI statute, requires reversal. However, we will mention several of the other points that require reversal in the event the Supreme Court of Florida ultimately upholds the constitutionality of the DWI statute, section 316.1934(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985).
It appears that appellant was driving a motor vehicle at a high rate of speed when it entered an intersection through a red light and struck another vehicle causing physical injuries to a passenger in said vehicle. There was evidence that appellant smelled of alcohol; that his speech was slurred and his gait unsteady; and that an analysis of a sample of his blood showed the presence of .24 grams of alcohol per milliliter of blood. However, there was other evidence that appellant appeared coherent and the officer at the scene did not believe there was probable cause to arrest appellant for DWI.
When the officer arrived at the scene and began conducting his investigation, he was directed to appellant by a witness and, as he approached appellant, the latter advised him that he drank six to seven beers that evening, but that he was neither impaired nor at fault.
At trial, over appellant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on the presumption of intoxication set forth in section 316.1934(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). This court previously held in Rolle v. State, 528 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), that such instruction creates an unconstitutional mandatory rebuttable presumption of impairment in that it offends the requirement of due process by relieving the state of its burden to prove this essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we must reverse the judgment of conviction on authority of Rolle.
Next, we consider it to be reversible error for the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilhelm v. State, 87-1493
...Miller v. Norvell, 775 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1126, 106 S.Ct. 1995, 90 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986); Yost v. State, 542 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Frazier v. State, 530 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rolle v. State, 528 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Constitutional err......
-
Gatlin v. State
...for that provision may have indicated to a juror that the defendant bore an affirmative burden of persuasion. See also, Yost v. State, 542 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Frazier v. State, 530 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA The instruction at issue in the case before us is further distinguishab......
-
Norstrom v. State, 89-1966
...to make in order to comply with his or her statutory duty under section 316.066(1) and (2). (emphasis added) In Yost v. State, 542 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court, citing to Brackin, held it to be reversible error for the trial court to allow testimony of the investigating officer......
-
Busch v. State, 87-2705
...influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. We are aware of our decision in Yost v. State, 542 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). However, we find the statute per se is not unconstitutional and falls within the prerogative of the legislature. We do ag......