 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hearn1/23/2003
er factors, "the aspects of the field sobriety test pointed out by the officer in the walk and turn and the one leg stand." Inasmuch as (1) the court as fact finder did rely on the FSTs, (2) Defendant was entitled to impeach the officer with respect to the FSTs but was precluded from doing so, and (3) it is apparent that the court's reliance on the FSTs was not separable from its ultimate finding and conclusion of guilt, the ICA gravely erred in holding that other evidence supported the court's decision.
It could be argued that the 1984 Manual was excluded because there may have been a subsequent edition or different standards utilized by the police department. Such an argument was not considered by the trial court, however, nor was it raised on appeal. Although the court asked about the date of the manuscript, see majority opinion at 2 n.1, all discussion by the court and the litigants revolved primarily around whether the manuscript was an original, or a duplicate copy. As this court does not consider issues not presented before a trial court, see State v. Rodrigues, 67 Haw. 496, 498, 692 P.2d 1156, 1158 (1985) (" t is a generally accepted rule that issues not raised at the trial level will not be considered on appeal" (citing State v. DeSilva, 64 Haw. 40, 41, 636 P.2d 728, 729 (1981) and State v. Hook, 60 Haw. 197, 204, 587 P.2d 1224, 1229 (1978)), we need not address this issue.
However, assuming arguendo that this contention was raised by the parties, an analysis of the two tests demonstrates that they are virtually the same. See R.E. Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases § 10.06 (3d ed. 2002). Both tests describe essentially the same factors or clues, and no obvious distinctions can be made so that the year of the test would have made a difference as to admissibility of the 1984 manual.
The trial court excluded the 1984 manual because (1) it was a photocopy of the original, and (2) the testifying officer was unable to recognize it. Under Hawaii Rules of Evidence 1003, a duplicate is admissible unless a "genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original[.]" Here, the only question raised by the prosecution was as to the date of the manual, which was included in the photocopied duplicate. Thus, no genuine question was raised as to the authenticity of the manual and it should have been admitted. In addition, as the officer testified that the FST procedures were standardized by the NHTSA and the court relied upon his testimony, Defendant was entitled to cross-examine the officer in regards to the national standards outlined in the 1984 manual.
Defendant had a right to impeach the officer with the national standards established by the NHTSA, but this right was denied. Accordingly, the ICA's June 5, 2002 SDO affirming the district court's October 24, 2000 judgment should be reversed, and the district court's said judgment convicting and sentencing Petitioner for DUI should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|