County Case No.: TT00-005866-XX
Appeal No.: DD-49
VONDA J. GRIZZELLE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal of a DUI conviction in the county court of Polk County, Judge James A. Yancey presiding. Appellant, Vonda J. Grizzelle, raises on appeal the trial judge's ruling on defense counsel's motion in limine. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a). The ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.
On November 26, 2000, Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Boehmler responded to a call in reference to an accident scene at Reynolds Road in East Lakeland. Upon Deputy Boehmler’s arrival, he noticed a black truck in a ditch facing east off Reynolds Road with both doors open and the Appellant leaning against the back of the truck. There was no one else present at the accident scene except Appellant and there was no evidence that the keys were in the ignition or that the engine was running. After obtaining her license and registration, Deputy Boehmler confirmed that the truck belonged to Appellant. Deputy Boehmler also testified to observing Appellant and giving her a field sobriety test. However, no further details were given nor solicited regarding Appellant’s appearance and condition. After arresting Appellant for driving under the influence, Deputy Boehmler transported her to the jail, where he interviewed her. During the investigation, Appellant admitted that she was driving the truck and that she was on her way home at the time of the accident
Since Appellant stipulated that Appellant’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, the sole issue at trial was whether there was enough evidence to establish that Appellant was the driver of the truck. At trial, defense counsel argued that the corpus delicti of the DUI offense was not established and thus Appellant's statements should not have been admitted. Counsel contended that there was insufficient evidence, other than Appellant’s admission, that placed her behind the wheel of the truck. The trial court denied the motion in limine, the Appellant pled nolo contendere and now seeks review of the denial of this motion.
A trial court has wide discretion in areas concerning the admission of evidence, and, unless an abuse of discretion can be shown, its rulings will not be disturbed. San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1998).
Before a confession is admitted into evidence, corpus delicti must be established independently of the confession. Bassett v. State, 449 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984). The state has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed, as a prerequisite to offering in evidence an admission against interest. Id. Corpus delicti can be demonstrated by direct or circumstantial evidence and the only question is whether the evidence of the corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to authorize the admission of the confession. State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1976).
Testimony at trial established that the Appellant’s truck was in a ditch and the only vehicle involved, there were no other potential drivers present at the accident scene, and the Appellant was leaning against the back of the truck by the driver’s side when the deputy arrived. Furthermore, Appellant’s license and registration confirmed that the truck belonged to her. While the Court acknowledges that the evidence is not overwhelming, there was sufficient evidence under the totality of the circumstances to infer that the Appellant drove the truck. Therefore, the trial judge correctly concluded that the elements of driving while under the influence were independently established.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.
ORDERED April 2002.
CHARLES B. CURRY, Chief Judge