 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marrical v. State8/18/1999
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law, nor as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Suzanne H. Lombardi, Judge.
A jury convicted Pamela R. Marrical of driving while intoxicated (DWI), a class A misdemeanor. Marrical appeals, contending that District Court Judge Suzanne H. Lombardi erred by excluding defense evidence and in instructing the jury. We affirm.
In the early morning of March 17, 1998, Wasilla Police Officer Kenneth Conn saw a pickup truck stop at a stop sign (outside the police station where Conn was working) for about 30 seconds. The truck drove away, but about three minutes later it returned to the stop sign and stopped again. Later, after Conn went out in his vehicle on patrol, he saw the same pickup truck make a wide turn without using its turn indicator signal. Conn followed the pickup and eventually stopped it (the truck did not stop in response to Conn's flashing lights immediately but continued to drive erratically for some distance) and contacted its driver, Marrical. Marrical appeared impaired or intoxicated, so Conn administered field sobriety tests (all of which Marrical failed) and then arrested her for driving while intoxicated.
On appeal, Marrical first contends that Judge Lombardi should have allowed her to admit pages from her hospital records into evidence in order to show that "many of the so-called 'indicators' of intoxication were in fact caused by her medical condition." After Conn had testified as outlined above, and before cross-examination, Marrical asked (outside the presence of the jury) to admit ten pages from her hospital records dating from June 29, 1986, to July 13, 1986 -- almost twelve years before the events in this case. Judge Lombardi heard arguments by the attorneys and eventually ruled that the pages were not relevant. The 1986 records described the patient with phrases such as "bipolar disorder" without explanation. Judge Lombardi held that the records would not be helpful or relevant to a jury in evaluating a defendant's behavior or symptoms of intoxication twelve years later. The Judge added that because such phrases were mixed in with other wholly irrelevant and hearsay statements, admitting the pages would be confusing and misleading to the jury. The Judge added, in response to questions by Marrical's attorney, that testimony by a medical expert would be necessary to explain the phrases in the pages and that testimony by Marrical herself would not suffice to render the pages admissible.
Later, after Conn had been cross-examined and the prosecution had rested its case, Marrical declined to testify or present a defense case at all. Marrical's attorney announced that this decision was made "given the court's ruling that, if Ms. Marrical were to testify regarding her condition, we would still need a medical expert." After the court and attorneys further discussed the admissibility of the pages on hearsay and authentication grounds, with Judge Lombardi again stating that her primary reason for not admitting the pages was on relevance grounds, Marrical's attorney stated that "given your ruling that we need a medical expert, there's no sense . . . put[ting] her on the stand . . . to discuss her disease."
"Alaska case law defines the test of relevancy. 'To be of sufficient relevance for admission, testimony, documents or
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|