DUI Evidence South Carolina| DUI Evidence Myrtle Beach| Breathalyzer Results Myrtle Beach

Evidence of Driving Under the Influence

State v. Salisbury, 330 S.C. 250, 498 S.E.2d 655 (S.C.App.1998).

“A circumstantial evidence charge should be given where no witness saw the defendant commit the crime, where he has made no admission thereof, and where the evidence is *259 circumstantial. Id. The failure or refusal to give a circumstantial evidence instruction is not error where there is direct evidence the defendant committed the act charged. Id. at § 1391. Where the evidence is partly direct and partly circumstantial, a circumstantial evidence instruction may overemphasize the circumstantial evidence, while neglecting the equally important direct evidence.”
“An officer's eyewitness observations of suspect’s driving, his physical manifestations of intoxication, his failure of the sobriety tests as a whole, and his failure of the preliminary breath test; all constitute direct evidence which tends to prove to the officer the existence of the fact in issue, to-wit: that suspect is intoxicated.”
“Concerning Discovery (Rule 5 listed below) à The Supreme Court upheld a denial for a Rule 5 motion in which Defendant had requested the repair and maintenance records of the breathalyzer machine, the identity of the individual who mixed the stock and the simulator solutions, and the records of when the solutions had been last changed.”

“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.”

“A motorist is not “in custody” during the performance of field sobriety tests, and is therefore not entitled to a recitation of constitutional rights prior to the tests; a motorist's response to questions about his drinking are admissible despite lack of Miranda warnings.”

Admissibility of Breathalyzer Results under Salisbury

“Prior to admitting the results of a breathalyzer test, the State may be required to prove: (1) the machine was in proper working order at the time of the test; (2) the correct chemicals had been used; (3) the accused was not allowed to put anything in his mouth for twenty minutes prior to the test; and (4) the test was administered by a qualified person in the proper manner.”
“The testimony of an operator that he or she had run a simulator test immediately before the actual test, and that the breathalyzer machine gave a reading equal to the percent of alcohol in the simulator solution, is sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the machine was working properly and that the correct chemicals had been used.”