 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Adams v. Ciesla12/9/1999
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Adams County: DUANE H. POLIVKA, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel Ciesla appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). The trial court determined that, under a stipulation of the parties, the elements of OMVWI had been proven, and further that Ciesla was not entitled to have a jury determine whether he had been entrapped into committing the offense. Ciesla contends that the trial court erred in refusing his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. After reviewing the evidence of the alleged entrapment in the light most favorable to Ciesla, we conclude that the trial court did not err in directing a guilty verdict. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
. Ciesla and his girlfriend traveled from Chicago to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Oxford, Wisconsin, to visit an acquaintance who was incarcerated there. The girlfriend drove Ciesla's automobile, and during a stop along the way, Ciesla drank a "couple beers" and a "few shots." After arriving at the institution and undergoing the prison's screening process, they were ushered into a waiting room. A waiting room officer noticed that Ciesla smelled of alcohol and contacted his supervisor. The supervising lieutenant approached Ciesla and asked him if he had been drinking. After Ciesla admitted to consuming "a couple of beers," the lieutenant informed him that, pursuant to prison policy, he would not be allowed to remain on the institution's grounds.
. Ciesla informed his companion that he had to leave the institution, asked her for the car keys and said he would wait for her in the car. The lieutenant told Ciesla that he would not be allowed to wait in the car and that he must leave the institution's premises. Ciesla then told his friend that he would meet her back at the institution later.
. The lieutenant escorted Ciesla to the front entrance of the institution and watched him as he walked away from the building. Ciesla did not walk off the institution's grounds as the lieutenant had expected him to do; instead, Ciesla got into his car and drove away. Aware that Ciesla was probably intoxicated, the lieutenant became concerned that Ciesla might injure someone while driving and contacted the Adams County Sheriff's Department. A county deputy located Ciesla, stopped him, and arrested him for OMVWI.
. Ciesla moved to dismiss the citation on the grounds of entrapment, but the trial court denied the motion following evidentiary hearings on the issue. At the beginning of the trial to a jury, the parties stipulated that Ciesla had driven a vehicle on a county highway while under the influence of alcohol. After admitting the transcripts of testimony from the two previous hearings on the entrapment issue, Ciesla again moved to dismiss, and in the alternative, requested that the jury be instructed on the entrapment defense. The County moved for a directed verdict of guilty. The trial court denied Ciesla's motion to dismiss and directed a verdict finding Ciesla guilty of OMVWI. Ciesla appeals the subsequent judgment convicting him of OMVWI.
ANALYSIS
. Ciesla was charged with violating a county traffic ordinance. A proceeding to enforce a municipal ordinance is a civil action, and a directed verdict of guilty may be entered if the elements of the offense are indisputably proven and there is no evidence to sustain a defense. See City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 358-59, 311 N.W.2d 620, 624 (1981); see also City of Milwaukee v. Bichel, 35 Wis.2d 66, 68-69, 150 N.W.2d 419, 421 (1967). A motion for a directed verdict may not be gran
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|