Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Sykes

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division

April 30, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JEREMY SCOTT SYKES, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY Honorable Sidney T. Pearson, III, Circuit Judge.

          OPINION

          Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

         Jeremy Scott Sykes ("Defendant") appeals claiming in a single point that the trial court erred under section 490.065.2, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2017, in permitting a highway patrolman to opine that Defendant was driving a truck when it collided with a car. Defendant does not challenge the trooper's qualification as an accident reconstructionist or that the reconstructionist's knowledge would help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, but rather, Defendant asserts the reconstructionist's opinion that Defendant was driving was not based on sufficient facts or data, and was not the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts of the case as required by section 490.065.2 for expert testimony. We reject Defendant's claim and affirm the trial court's judgment.

         Facts and Procedural Background

         Offenses Charged

         Defendant was charged by amended information with two counts of the class C felony of assault in the second degree and with being a prior offender (based on a 2003 felony conviction for possession of cocaine and marijuana). The amended information charged that, on June 5, 2015, Defendant operated a motor vehicle "while under the influence of alcohol" and "acted with criminal negligence" in "speeding" and "fail[ing] to stop at a stop sign" causing "physical injury" to the driver of a second vehicle (Count I) and to a passenger in Defendant's vehicle (Count II).

         The trial court conducted a pretrial hearing in which two officers testified to their conclusions that Defendant was driving the truck involved in the accident. Sergeant Pulley was questioned at the pretrial hearing. The trial court stated:

THE COURT: Counsel, you seem to be under the impression that he is relying on some kind of scientific tests to determine who was driving. What he's told us in this hearing is that it was based on the fact that his DNA and his blood was on the steering wheel. That's not a scientific test. If you want to question him about the tests themselves, which I assume he didn't do, someone else did, tested blood and things. I'm not sure why you're getting into what you're getting into. He didn't base it on scientific tests, did you? What did you base your conclusion that he was driving on?
A. What I explained. The totality of the circumstances, talking to the occupants, talking to - my examination of the scene, my examination of the vehicle later where we discovered the blood, the DNA evidence, that led to him.
THE COURT: Did you perform any scientific tests in this matter?
A. No.

         The trial court later asked:

THE COURT: - are you basing your opinion on all these studies or are you basing your opinion on the fact that this defendant's blood was on the steering wheel, they were hit from the right, and when ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.