 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haley3/18/2003
, that the fact that Haley had already stepped outside of the vehicle by the time he was approached by Meyer can be seen to transform this case into anything beyond a routine traffic stop by an officer who witnessed a driver proceeding the wrong way down the street. To the contrary, under the analysis in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984), the fact that Haley's detention was even more public than the usual traffic stop favors the State's position that no Miranda warning was required.
Haley also claims that the detention occurred through the actions of three police officers, making the atmosphere more "'police dominated'" than the typical stop. Brief for appellant at 10. However, the record shows that Haley was detained only by Meyer. The other two officers, although present at the scene, were occupied with the passengers in the vehicle, some of whom were very intoxicated.
Haley further claims that as soon as he admitted he had no license, Meyer had probable cause to arrest him. According to Haley, his admission that he had been driving should have been suppressed because it came only after his admission that he had no license and in response to Meyer's assertion that he saw Haley driving. However, the record shows that Meyer followed normal procedures for a traffic stop.
The facts in this case do not justify Haley's contention that his admission to Meyer should have been suppressed. Meyer asked to see Haley's license after witnessing him driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Upon discovering that Haley had no license, Meyer asked if Haley's license had been suspended. Haley stated that his license was suspended but that he was not the driver. When Meyer replied that he had seen Haley driving, Haley admitted that he had been the driver. This record, then, does not show any further action or treatment by the police to render Haley "in custody" and entitled to Miranda warnings. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in ruling that Haley's statements need not be suppressed.
Haley also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He points to certain evidence that could show that the officers' view of 14th Street was obstructed and that they therefore could not have been able to identify Haley as the driver of the vehicle.
In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence. State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420, 648 N.W.2d 282 (2002). Such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the properly admitted evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. Id. When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
The evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, is that Meyer saw Haley driving the vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street and that all three officers, in fact, witnessed Haley emerging from the driver's seat of the vehicle. In addition, Haley admitted to Meyer that he was driving, a statement that was properly admitted into evidence. The evidence is sufficient to uphold Haley's conviction for driving under a suspended license.
Finally, Haley argues that his sentence was excessive. It is well established that an appellate court will
Page 1 2 3 4 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|