 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baldwin v. State1/13/2000
Submitted: November 23, 1999
ORDER
This 13th day of January, 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1) Baldwin appeals from her conviction, following a jury trial, of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended or revoked license. She argues that the trial court erred in (i) denying her motions for a mistrial and to strike, and (ii) sentencing her as a fourth offender.
2) Baldwin and a friend, Calvin Shehan, were in Shehan's pick-up truck, traveling on Route 24 in Sussex County, when the truck struck another vehicle. Both Baldwin and Shehan had been drinking before the accident and Baldwin did not dispute the State's evidence that she was intoxicated. Her defense was that she was not driving. Baldwin's husband testified that, when Baldwin and Shehan left the Baldwins' home on the evening of the accident, Shehan was driving. Two of Baldwin's friends corroborated that story, testifying that they saw the pick-up truck on the road, and Baldwin was in the passenger seat.
3) Two eyewitnesses for the State testified that, immediately after the accident, they saw a female get out of the driver's side of the pick-up and walk around to the passenger's side. In addition, the State presented evidence that Baldwin's injuries on her left shoulder were consistent with injuries that would be caused by a driver's side seatbelt.
4) Shehan was subpoenaed, but did not appear on the first day of trial. He was brought in on a capias the next day and the trial court questioned him about the accident. Shehan told the court that he was not the driver. When the trial resumed several days later, the State asked Shehan who was driving at the time of the accident and Shehan testified that he could not remember. The State then asked Shehan if he told the court that he was not the driver. Shehan agreed that that was what he told the court.
5) Baldwin moved for a mistrial on the ground that Shehan's statements to the court were inadmissible and would be given undue weight by the jury. Alternatively, she moved to strike that portion of Shehan's testimony. The trial court denied the motions, but instructed the jury that answers to a judge's questions should be given no more weight than answers to a lawyer's questions.
6) We review the trial court's denial of Baldwin's motions for abuse of discretion. Although judges rarely should participate in the fact-finding process, we find no abuse of discretion in this case. The trial court was questioning Shehan in connection with a capias return and the questions were relevant to the court's decision on how to assure Shehan's attendance at trial. To the extent that the jury may have given undue weight to Shehan's statements to the court, the trial court cured any potential prejudice by instructing the jury not to give any weight to the fact that Shehan's prior statements were elicited by the court.
7) Baldwin also argues that Shehan's out-of-court statement was not voluntary, as required by 11 Del. C. §3507. Since she did not raise this issue in the trial court, we review for plain error, which is error that is "so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process." In light of the fact that two disinterested witnesses testified that Baldwin was in the driver's seat, Shehan's testimony was not essential and admission of his out-of-court statement was not plain error.
8) Baldwin also complains that the trial court erred in sentencing her as a fourth offender under 21 Del. C. §4177(d)(4). Baldwin had three prior convictions for driving under the
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|