 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Milwaukee v. Bell7/11/2000
retrial motion prohibiting the City from admitting Bell's field tests.
. Bell next argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in allowing testimony regarding his performance on the field sobriety tests into evidence. Bell argues that the testimony concerning his performance on the field sobriety tests was inadmissible because while relevant, the evidence's probative value was outweighed by its unfair prejudice. Relying on Wis. Stat. § 904.03, he claims that the field test results were outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the field sobriety tests are unreliable tests to detect intoxication. Consequently, much of Bell's argument attacks the trustworthiness of field sobriety tests. Like the trial court, however, this court believes the reliability of the field sobriety test results goes to the weight of the evidence-not their admissibility. Thus, the field test results were admissible and Bell was free to argue their lack of trustworthiness. Further, this court cannot find that the probative value of field test results was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The jury was entitled to consider all the relevant evidence and Bell's ability to perform the field tests was relevant. Certainly evidence that an officer believed that Bell failed the field sobriety tests was not helpful to Bell's defense, but neither was it unfairly prejudicial.
. Finally, Bell argues that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury regarding the effects of his blood alcohol test results. Bell argues that the trial court erred when it failed to modify Wis JI-Criminal 2668, to state that blood test results were only "relevant evidence."
. Bell first argues that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that they could infer from the test results taken a short time after his arrest that his BAC when he was driving would have been in the prohibited range. Bell insists that the trial court was obligated to modify the inference contained in Wis JI-Criminal 2668 with language that the test results were only "relevant evidence." Bell reaches this conclusion by coupling the holding in State v. Vick, 104 Wis. 2d 678, 312 N.W.2d 489 (1981), with a cautionary comment found in the committee notes to Wis JI-Criminal 234. First, he observes that in Vick, the supreme court opined that in order for the jury instruction's permissible inference to be constitutional, there must be a rational connection between the inference and the ultimate fact. See Vick, 104 Wis. 2d at 695. Without any evidence linking the two, the supreme court observed that the jury instruction would not survive a constitutional challenge. See id. at 695-96. Bell maintains that there was no rational connection here because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his impairment. He asserts that without this evidence, the jury instruction's reference to a permissible inference is fatally flawed and the trial court erred in giving it.
. He next submits that the trial court should have modified the statute along the lines suggested in the committee comments to Wis JI-Criminal 234. He posits that the trial court, instead of advising the jury of the permissible inference, should have told the jury that the BAC test results were merely other relevant evidence. Without this modification, he believes the trial court erred. This court is not persuaded.
. A trial court has wide discretion in issuing jury instructions based upon the facts and circumstances of the case. See State v. Pruitt, 95 Wis. 2d 69, 80-81, 289 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1980). Thus, the standard of review here is whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion.
. This court is satisfie
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|