 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Olrun v. State2/3/1999
3978 NOTICE
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
No. 3978
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Bethel, Craig R. McMahon, Magistrate.
A jury convicted Leonard Olrun of two counts of assault in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor, and two counts of harassment, a class B misdemeanor. District Court Magistrate Craig R. McMahon sentenced Olrun to a composite total of 540 days' imprisonment. Olrun appeals his convictions and his sentence. We affirm.
On March 14, 1996, two girls, S.W., aged 15, and T.A., aged 12, went to the game room owned by Olrun's father, which Olrun was tending at the time; while they listened to songs on the jukebox, Olrun came up behind the girls and put his arms around them, trying to touch their breasts and buttocks and to kiss them. S.W. testified at trial that Olrun's conduct "hurt" and "scared" her and that, when Olrun threatened to "beat the shit out of" the girls as they were leaving, S.W. became " eally scared." T.A. also testified that Olrun's conduct "hurt" and "scared" her and made her cry and that when the girls left she was scared Olrun would come after them and hurt them more. Olrun testified that he had put his arms around the girls' shoulders in a friendly fashion; he also testified that he had put T.A. into a headlock after S.W. had taken his cap and thrown it to T.A. After a trial, the jury convicted Olrun of fourth-degree assault and harassment against each of the two girls.
On appeal, Olrun first contends that Magistrate McMahon should have granted a mistrial because the prosecutor had impugned the credibility of his defense counsel by, in the presence of the jury, accusing defense counsel of using "sleazy tactics" to question witnesses. Our review of the trial transcript reveals that Magistrate McMahon did not abuse his discretion by denying a mistrial.
During defense counsel's cross-examination of S.W., the prosecutor had objected to defense counsel's questions seven times and the objections were sustained four times; in addition, S.W. twice stated the defense counsel was getting her "confused" and once apparently began crying (Magistrate McMahon called a five-minute recess and offered S.W. a tissue). Immediately after the seventh objection (on "asked and answered" grounds) was sustained, the prosecutor then stated, "Your Honor, I would like to have the court admonish [defense counsel] not to badger or repeat questions or confu- try to confuse the witness. She's answered all these questions." In a bench conference, Olrun's attorney requested a mistrial because the prosecutor had said this "in front of the jury" instead of "here" (in a bench conference), which the magistrate denied. After this bench conference, Olrun's attorney's cross-examination resumed before the jury; the prosecutor made three more objections to defense counsel's questions, all of which were sustained, and S.W. stated twice more that defense counsel was getting her confused. Then, in another bench conference (parts of which are marked "indiscernible" on the transcript), the prosecutor stated defense counsel was using "the same tactics" he had used in other trials of confusing witnesses by repeatedly asking them the same questions. Olrun's attorney did not again request a mistrial.
We conclude that Magistrate McMahon did
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|