 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ehmke12/15/1999
Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62, Stats
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Washington County: LEO F. SCHLAEFER, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert J. Ehmke, II, appeals from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, fourth offense, contrary to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Ehmke argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. More specifically, he contends that the State's evidence was insufficient because it lacked proof regarding the time of vehicle operation. Additionally, he objects to the trial court permitting a State's expert witness to testify to a hypothetical question about Ehmke's blood alcohol level at the time he operated the vehicle and admitting his blood test results into evidence. Because the evidence presented at trial would allow a reasonable jury to find Ehmke guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of operating his vehicle while intoxicated, this court affirms the judgment.
. At 10:54 p.m. on April 8, 1998, Deputy Daniel Brawn went to investigate a vehicle that had been driven into a ditch along the side of a road. Brawn arrived at the scene and saw the unoccupied vehicle in the ditch. A few moments later, Ehmke walked out of the ditch on the opposite side of the road and admitted that the vehicle was his. Ehmke told Brawn that he was "farting around ... and had lost control of his car, and that's how he ended up in the ditch."
. During the conversation, Brawn noticed a strong odor of intoxicants on Ehmke's breath, his speech was slurred, and his eye appeared bloodshot and glassed over. Brawn asked Ehmke if he had been drinking. Ehmke replied that he "had a couple earlier" and "knew he shouldn't have been driving but he did anyway." Brawn asked Ehmke to perform field sobriety tests. Ehmke performed the heel-to-toe test, the alphabet test, the backwards counting test and the fingertip counting test. Brawn determined that Ehmke failed to satisfactorily perform all of the tests except the fingertip counting test. Based on his training and experience, Brawn believed that Ehmke was intoxicated and, after administering a preliminary breath test, placed Ehmke under arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
. Ehmke was transported to a hospital. He was read an Informing the Accused form, and an evidentiary chemical test of his blood was taken at 1:13 a.m. on April 9, 1998.
. After Ehmke pled not guilty, a trial to the court was held. Brawn testified about the circumstances leading to Ehmke's arrest. Brawn added that Ehmke had not consumed alcohol between the time of their initial contact and his release from custody. Also, Brawn noted that no cans or bottles were found at the scene or in the vehicle driven into the ditch, which indicated that Ehmke had not consumed alcohol at the scene after running the car off the road.
. The State also presented testimony from Noel Stanton, a chemist at the State Laboratory of Hygiene, who conducted the analysis of Ehmke's blood sample. Stanton testified that the blood test results revealed that Ehmke had 0.194 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. This test was performed at 1:13 a.m. Stanton theorized that if the test had been performed at 10:30 p.m., the time that the State estimated that Ehmke drove the car into the ditch, a person of his size, who did not consume any addition
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|