but we could also search for the DUI in DUI investigations um actually strike that I want to be clear was marijuana what you suspected the defendant to be under influ the influence of no can you tell the jury what you suspected him to be under the influence of alcohol was alcohol your primary concern throughout your investigation yes now I want to transition also to the breath test um that you asked from the defendant um opposing Council asked you a bit about um how the defendant was leaning towards you can you describe to the jury what it was like when he was leaning towards you as you read the implied consent form objection relevance can you tell the jwy what it was like as he leaned towards you when you read the implied consent form sure so I was just trying to read the implied consent form like I said it was one of those procedural things for a DUI and he was yelling at me the whole time and then when he was leaning towards me I didn't know what his intentions were um so that's why I shut the door and then I continued reading implied consent through the open window I thought he might if I had kept the door open I thought he might try to exit the vehicle or uh try to I guess calls for speculation sustain officer can you just give us a visual estimate with your hands about how far away he got to you or how close he was to you when he leaned towards you uh I would say probably that close no further questions does this witness need to be retained I guess your honor you can step down but please do not leave the courthouse thank you um I still have the paperwork that you can retrieve it yes State you may call your next witness the St calls um Sergeant to the stand [Music] and if I could just have for you could stop right there and let the clerk swear you in please may have a seat St May inquire thank you your honor could you please introduce yourself to the members of our Dury yes my name is Brian Smith I'm a sergeant with the city of taly police department and for the record purposes can you spell your last name yes it's s SM I Sergeant Smith I want to talk about your experience as an officer for for starters um could you tell us I know you said you work for the Tallahassee Police Department when did you start start working for them in December of 2008 okay so for a total of how many years at this point it's 15 so during the 15 years at Tallahassee Police Department did you receive any training related to DUI investigations I did not specifically no ma'am okay have you ever responded to dii investigations yes ma'am are you usually backup or can you give us a little insight into what your involvement usually is typically it's as a backup officer so it would just be for um while the officer is conducting their investigation I would just be there for SA purposes or to assist with traffic control just depending on the situation okay so I want to transition over to the this case um do you recall if you were on duty the early hours of May 7th 2023 yes I was um were you called to a scene of a traffic stop around 2: a.m. yes ma'am I was can you tell us what your understanding of your involvement was that morning um initially they just asked for for me to respond um when I got there I was informed that uh Mr Riley was um have been combative and they just needed assistance getting him from um officer Oliver's vehicle to officer M's vehicle um do you recall what time you arrived at it was right around 225 2 26ish in the morning so when you arrived at the scene did you end up speaking with the defendants at all yes ma'am I did did you have your body warn camera footage on yes ma'am I did if I showed you a copy of that would you recognize it yes ma'am permission to approach yes theing Council what their pre mark and I now Sergeant I've just handed you what premark to States exhibit G can you tell us what that is it's a CD with my signature on it what's on the CD to your knowledge um it's actually my body War camera from the the 9th incident did you have an opportunity to review that before today yes ma'am I did were you able to confirm if this was a fair and accurate copy of your body camera yes ma'am it is has it been changed or altered in any way since you last seen it no ma'am the state moves into evidence what's been pre-marked at States exhibit G as States exhibit 6 any objection we would object ask to approach on one [Music] Bri e for sorry ladies and gentlemen you need to take another break uh this is going to be a very short one I just need to listen to something and rule on it outside of your presence if you can please leave what's the defensive position I was going off of the uh standard instruction says give 2 a 2 b or both as applicable but if I could have a moment to review that case okay and sorry what was that final number 739 Southern second 1200 12200 thank would you may be seated the bench May proceed at this time defense rest okay thank so members of the jury I want to thank you for your attention during this trial please pay attention to the instructions I'm about to give you Calvin Ry the defendant in this case has been accused of the crime of driving Under the Influence to prove the crime of driving under the influence the state must prove the following two elements Beyond A Reasonable Doubt one Calvin Riley drove or was an actual physical control of a vehicle two while driving or an actual physical control of the vehicle Calvin Riley was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired vehicle is every device in upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn Upon A Highway normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see hear walk talk judge distances drive an automobile make judgments act in emergencies and in general to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives impaired means diminished in some material respect actual physical control of a vehicle means that the defendant must be physically in or on the vehicle and have the ab the cap ability to operate the vehicle regardless of whether he is actually operating the vehicle at the time alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind in description which contain alcohol count two has been removed from your consideration it is no longer of concern to you plea of not guilty Reasonable Doubt and burden of proof the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty this means you must presume or believe that the defendant is innocent the presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and Beyond A Reasonable Doubt to overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence the state has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime the defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything whenever the words Reasonable Doubt are used you must consider the following A Reasonable Doubt is not a mere possible doubt a speculative imaginary or forced doubt such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt on the other hand if after carefully considering comparing and weighing all the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction it is not one which is stable but one which waivers and vacillates then the charge is not proved Beyond every Reasonable Doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable it is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof A Reasonable Doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence if you have a reasonable doubt you you should find the defendant not guilty if you have no Reasonable Doubt you should find the defendant guilty it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable you should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict you may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence you should consider how the witness acted as well as what they said some things you should consider are did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified did the witness seem to have an accurate memory was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney's questions did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court I can't remember if I skipped one did I skip one no whether the state has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it has offered but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented it is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom the witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony you may rely upon your own conclusion about The credibility of any witness a juror May believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness the fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that his or her testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness the Constitution excuse me the Constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against the defendant it is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything nor is the defendant required to prove his innocence it is up to the state to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence the defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case you must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by his decision no juror should ever be concerned that a defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case there are some general rules that apply to your discussion you must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict you must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions if you fail to follow the law your verdict will be a miscarriage of Justice there is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case all of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone remember that the lawyers are not on trial your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accord with the law it is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty whatever verdict you render must be unanimous that is each juror must agree to the same verdict your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice bias or sympathy your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions deciding a verdict is exclusively your job I cannot participate in that decision in any way please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I prefer one verdict over another you may find the defendant guilty as charged in the information or not guilty if you return a verdict of guilty it should be for the highest offense which has been proven Beyond a reasonable doubt if you find that no offense has been proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt then of course your verdict must be not guilty the verdict form must be unanimous that is all of you must agree to the same verdict only one verdict may be returned as to each crime charged the verdict form must be in writing and for your convenience the necessary verdict form has been prepared for you it is as follows the verdict form has the style of the case on top it says verdict we the jury find as follows as to count one of the information driving Under the Influence check only one a the defendant Calvin Riley is guilty B the defendant Calvin Riley is not guilty it needs to be signed and dated by the four person and please bring it back with you when you return to the court the attorneys will now present their final arguments please remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence or your instruction on the law however do listen closely to their arguments they are intended to Aid you in understanding the case each side will have equal time but the state is entitled to divide this time between an opening argument and a rebuttal argument after the defendant has spoken state do you wish to give a closing argument yes your honor proceed I have a moment to prepare the well may I proceed yes may may it please the court defense and members of the jury it was 2 a.m. and the defendant was driving down South Monroe Street with no headlights what so we learned in today's trial that it wasn't just as simple as him forgetting the lights he didn't notice that his headlights were off for at least 5 and a half miles he didn't realize and when he was finally stopped by law enforcement his words tell us all that we needed to know from the start of course I've been at the club had a couple of drinks I've been at that I've been at that club I've been at Pockets Pool and box his word she do look like one of them cops that do be outside like that though I ain't G to lie to y'all are all we need not cop I think I think this is a DA agent actually or one of the attorneys or something like that but she definitely likees she be outside the statement of now I want to pause for a suain I want to pause for a moment and thank you just hold on a second miss hery the state has just misstated the law for what it's needed for driving Under the Influence please use the jury instructions that I presented to you as your instructions on the law May proceed I wanted to pause for a moment and just say thank you to everyone for being here I know we spent Tuesday all together going through jury selection and deciding who would be the best fit for our jury and throughout this process you've all been great we went through Friday and of course there were some delays and of course you also had to take time out of your day today which was not expected and to say the least we couldn't have gotten through this process without you so I commend you all for that and I'm beyond grateful for that so what I wanted to talk about is what the law is in this case and what we have to look to to see whether or not the state has met its burden as the judge just instructed us the defendant in this case he's charged with driving Under the Influence now driving Under the Influence has two individual elements that the state had to prove to you here today first the def the the judge told us that the first element that the state needed to prove is that the defendant drove or he was in actual physical control of a vehicle now members of the jury I don't think this is something that's in dispute in this case we've seen the body warn camera we've seen testimony from two officers who told us here today that when they first encountered the defendant he was driving his vehicle down South Monroe Street the body warn camera footage that we saw on the televisions that in front of you showed the defendant inside his white Mercedes when law enforcement approached him they showed him in the driver's side seat behind the steering wheel and he was the only person in that vehicle so when we look at the evidence and the facts in this case we know that the state has in fact established the first element that he was driving a motor vehicle so that brings us to the second element and this is the second element that you really are here today to decide see as the judge judge just told us while driving or an act the state must prove that while driving or an actual physical control of the vehicle Kelvin Riley the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired now that element is a bit lengthy so I want to break it down into two separate parts starting with under the influence of alcoholic beverages we learned throughout today's trial that the defendant was undoubtedly under the influence of alcohol there's multiple things that we learn that through we learned that through his own admissions when officer MTH approached the vehicle let's go side park TR the objection is sustain just restate your statement so as I was previously stating the first element or the first part of this second element that we have to prove is that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages now when we look to the facts and the evidence in this case we know that there's several signs or several statements from the defendant that point us to the conclusion that he was under the influence that night for starters he admitted to officer mute at the scene that he had had a couple of drinks that night he told officer M that he was at a bar that night that he was out at a club how do we know he was out at a club well we saw The Wristband on his wrist that cooperated that statement we know he was out drinking that night we know that he was out there and he left around the time that bars close it was 2: in the morning so when we look at that element we would assert that it's been proven and if that's not enough we can also look to other things we can also consider whether or not his normal faculties were impaired and that's the second part of element two as the judge just instructed us normal faculties include multiple things it includes our ability to see so when we're talking about the defendant's ability to see that night there's a several things that officers noted that were concerning so let's talk through those starting with officer Oliver officer Oliver told us here today that when she first saw the defendant he was driving down the road in his white Mercedes And as he was driving down the road he didn't have his headlights on like I mentioned earlier he was driving nearly 5 and 1 half miles with no headlights and he couldn't see that it's dark outside it's 2 a.m. and you can't tell that you're driving and down in the road in the dark what does common sense and reason tell us see when we look at the jury instructions we see that when somebody's normal faculties are impaired it means that impairment is or impairment means that those normal faculties are diminished in some material respect and when you can't even tell that your headlights are off I I think it's safe to say that your ability to see has been diminished and if that's not enough there's another part that we should talk about because when officer Oliver tried to tell the defendant about his headlights being off he didn't believe her he asked her are you sure about that I believe those were his words are you sure about that it show officer Oliver debating with the defendant about having his head like off that she finally had to reach inside his vehicle and show him the Turning knob to turn them on he still didn't believe her until she finally clicked the knob to the right and showed him that they were off and it wasn't until the lights on his headlights finally illuminated that he finally widened his eyes and then turned the officer Oliver and still questioned her judgment and her ability to see that his headlights were in fact off it's not reasonable and the reason that we know that his sight was impaired was because of his admission to drinking alcohol that night so that brings us to another normal faculty that I wanted to discuss with you we listen to the defendant talk about or one of the additional normal faculties that we should consider during deliberations is the defendant's ability to talk that night now don't get me wrong here the video was sometimes a little hard to hear but then other times we know he was clear he was shouting he was yelling those times it was crystal clear and when we watch those videos here in court today it was clear that there were times that he was slurring his words he was not making sense for example when officer Oliver stopped him in his vehicle he said why you slow me down is that a statement that makes sense no but that was what was running through his head at that time why you slow me down so we have to look at his speech in those moments and whether or not we think based on his speech that it was diminished in some material respect so let's talk about another one now the defendant's ability to judge distances members of the jury this is a big one and I encourage you to remember the demonstrative that I showed during the testimony of Officer mute so I want to turn that on for you guys this is a map of the defendant's route that night based on his own admissions like I originally stated when he was first stopped by Officer Oliver first he says oh I'm just going home I'm going to West forvard Street well that didn't make sense because as officer Oliver told us on the stand yet on Friday he was heading the opposite direction so are you really going home if you're going completely the opposite direction I think not so now let's look at the other perspective because after after all officer Oliver gets to the scene officer M as she told us went and did her own independent investigation she told us here today that she went up to the defendant and asked him where are you going where were you planning on going he said he was going home and when she asked where are you coming from she said I was com he said I was coming from P or pockets and as we learned in today's trial pockets is a local bar here in Tallahassee located on the North side so when you look at that map that we showed you during today's trial you can see that the route just doesn't make sense and his ability to judge distances was materially diminished right here on this map we see Pockets pull in h if we're taking the defendant own word happen that night that means he would have traveled south on South Monroe Street all the way down to the intersection of South Monroe Street and Laura Lee Avenue we see how far he went passing by his own residence passing by the home he said he was heading to objection Honor on yes for over r now I'm sorry for the paus in there but I wanted to get back to what I was saying members of the jury as we saw in today's trial he would have started at Pockets Pool in pu all the way up in the north side here in Tallahasse if we take the defendant's own word for what happened that night he would have traveled well past his home address well past that West Bard Street address that he kept telling in officers about that night all the way down until he got to Laura Lee and South Monroe's intersection that's where law enforcement finally stopped him because he didn't have his headlights on and that's finally where they stopped him and who knows how much further he would have gone before law enforcement stopped in that night it's not clear but it clearly wasn't in the direction of his home because if he was heading home he would have to turn all the way around and go the exact say we nor back to his ad so members of the jurney when we're talking about the defendant's ability to judge distances we know that his ability to do so was diminished in some material respect absolutely the jury instructions also say that normal faculties include your ability to drive an automobile that's another thing that we heard about in today's trial not only the lack of headlights but also officer Oliver told us about his driving pattern when she went to stop him he was speeding down South Monroe Street at least 10 miles who knows maybe potentially more we don't know because officer Oliver didn't have a spe speed gun to tell us exactly how far but based on her training and experience she was able to assess that he was speeding that night now he wasn't just speeding he was speeding past two police cars with one of them that at least had their headlights on does that make sense to dry over the speed limit as he's passing a police car with with its headlights its emergency lights activated you can't miss that but he was speeding we also learned that in addition to the speeding he was swerving officer Oliver got on the stand and told us about how her she was concerned based on how he was operating his motor vehicle see when he was in the leftand turling there was a right hand or sorry when he was in the left hand or the left hand lane there was a vehicle coming up on the side of him in the right Officer Oliver told us here on Friday that while he was passing this vehicle on the right he started swerving and although he didn't Collide he could have and almost hit that vehicle his ability members of the jury to drive an automobile safely was diminished the next one talks about the ability to make judgments and this is another thing that we've talked about in two different respects first when law enforcement asks the defendant to complete a breath test now what we learned about the consequences of refusal of a breath test here in Florida officer M read to us here today day the exact same we're back on the record Davey Riley dependent is President Council table and jury is present in the courtroom has the jury reached a verdict yes right please pass the verdict form to the Bay Madam Clerk please publish V Mr Riley please stand in the matter of the State of Florida versus Calvin Riley Cas number 2023 c54 we the jury finds as follows as count one of the information driving the influence defend Ry is gu so say we all this of april24 you may be seated does either side wish to have the jury ped State no you're are yes Rob all right Madam cler can you please pull the jurors J number one is ladies and gentlemen I wish to thank you for your time and consideration of this case I also wish to advise you on some very special privileges enjoyed by jurors no juror can ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the Jury Room except by court order for many centuries our society has relied upon juries for consideration of difficult cases we have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberations discussions and votes should remain their private Affair as long as they wish it therefore the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work work although you are at Liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations you are also at Liberty to refuse to speak to anyone a request to discuss either your verdict or your deliberations may come from those who are simply curious from those who wish to seek who might seek to find fault with you from the media from the attorneys or elsewhere it will be up to you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a jury thank you again for your time and attention especially for coming back today we appreciate your work on this journey you are [Music] excuse all right you may be seated all right Mr Riley you've been found guilty by the jury I not pronounce you guilty of one count of driving Under the Influence is the state ready to proceed with sentencing um can I just have a moment on yes you may I'm ready to proceed okay uh the state would be asking for 12 months probation with as a special condition 10 days jail in addition to other required mandatory minimums under the GU statute so that's the DUI is any are there any prior DUIs no okay so DUI level one the 50 hours of community community service 10-day Vehicle Impound the 6mon DL suspension I don't have a standard ple form in front of me do you remember what the other standard DUI firsts are yes sir