Madeiros fights drunk driving conviction
appeal his 1992 conviction for impaired driving.
Madeiros, 64, is serving a three-year prison sentence after he was convicted last month of bilking alcoholic landowner Boyd Davis out of $506,000 while managing his finances.
In Supreme Court, Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood reserved judgement after hearing the appeal from Mr. Charles Vaucrosson, representing Madeiros.
But he said he had "some difficulty'' with the evidence Magistrate the Wor.
Cheryl-Ann Mapp relied on to convict Madeiros.
The July, 1992 conviction relates to a motor vehicle accident outside The Fisherman's Reef restaurant on Burnaby Street in Hamilton on December 14, 1992.
For impaired driving, Mrs. Mapp fined Madeiros $400 and disqualified him from driving for 12 months. For failing to stop at an accident, Mrs. Mapp fined Madeiros a further $100.
Mr. Vaucrosson argued there was no evidence Madeiros was impaired at the time, that he was driving the car involved in the collision, or that the car was even his.
At trial, a witness testified he saw a cream or light-coloured car back into a parked blue car, but he was unable to describe the driver. The witness testified he took down the licence plate number, which he could no longer recall, and passed it on to the owner of the blue car, who contacted Police.
P.c. Erskine Smith of Bermuda Police attended Madeiros' residence early on the morning of December 15 and noticed his white Mazda parked outside had damage to the rear end, Magistrates' Court heard at trial.
Madeiros answered the door wearing a bathrobe, court was told. He appeared unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred. Asked if he was the driver of the car, he said: "Yes.'' Asked if he had been drinking he said: "Yes; everyone who goes to The Fisherman's Reef drinks''.
"There was no evidence at any time that anyone ever saw (Madeiros) that night out anywhere,'' Mr. Vaucrosson said. "There is absolutely nothing to say the car was even on the road that night.'' Crown counsel Mr. Mark Pettingill argued it would require "a string of coincidences which is nothing less than absolutely incredible'' for Madeiros to be innocent of the offence.
