 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hill3/21/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury convicted defendant Loncell Hill, Jr., of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended license. We affirm the conviction.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
California Highway Patrol Officer Harold Cregger was the only witness at Hill's trial. He testified as follows: On November 2, 2001, at approximately 12:35 a.m., Cregger and his partner Chris Wahl saw a car traveling between 90 and 95 miles per hour on Interstate 80 in Solano County. They followed the car for approximately half a mile. During that time, the car did not cross over into another lane or swerve within its own lane. The officers got behind the speeding car, and the car pulled over to the side of the freeway. The driver, Hill, at first started to get out of the car on the driver's side; in order to protect him from freeway traffic, Cregger told him to get back in the car. Hill did so, then reached to open the passenger side door. Cregger approached the passenger side door; when it was opened, he noticed a strong smell of alcohol coming from inside the car. He later found an open 48-ounce can of malt liquor, which was half full and still cold, in the car. When he approached the car, Cregger asked Hill for his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Hill provided a California identification card, but no driver's license. His registration paperwork showed the car's registration was expired. He did not give Cregger any proof of insurance.
Cregger asked Hill to get out of the car on the passenger side. Hill did so, and Cregger noticed his gait was unsteady. According to Cregger's testimony, it was obvious to him that Hill was highly intoxicated, so he decided to administer field sobriety tests. He first asked Hill where he was coming from and where he was going; Hill said he was going to Fairfield. He also told Cregger he had no physical conditions that would cause problems in performing field sobriety tests.
Cregger had noticed a strong smell of alcohol coming from Hill, as well as slurred speech and red and watery eyes. Cregger asked Hill how much he had been drinking, and Hill said, "Nothing." Cregger told him that he smelled of alcohol and asked again how much he had had to drink. Hill then replied, "One beer." At trial, the prosecutor asked Cregger, "Did you believe that that was true?" Over objection, Cregger responded, "No."
Cregger then administered field sobriety tests. He had Hill perform the " odified position of attention" test, in which he was instructed to stand with his heels and toes together, keep his arms at his sides, tilt his head back, close his eyes, and estimate 30 seconds in his head. Hill failed to tilt his head back or close his eyes, and he swayed off center as he stood. Cregger then instructed Hill to do the "one-leg stand," raising one foot off the ground, looking at his foot, keeping his arms at his sides, and counting aloud from 1,001 to 1,030. Hill made two attempts to complete the test, but never got past number 16, and began to tell Cregger he could not complete the test. Cregger concluded Hill was highly intoxicated and would be unable to operate a motor vehicle safely. Cregger also performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, in which Hill was asked to keep his head still and follow the officer's finger from right to left with his eyes. The amount of invo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|