 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moussouras v. Municipality of Anchorage6/13/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4408
Following a bench trial before District Court Judge Peter G. Ashman, Andreas P. Moussouras was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Moussouras appeals, essentially claiming that Judge Ashman erred when he did not, when challenged for cause under AS 22.20.020, refer his decision to another judge for an independent review. For the reasons given below, we affirm Judge Ashman's decision.
Facts and Proceedings
On August 4, 1999, Moussouras was arrested for DWI. Moussouras was stopped at approximately 2:00 a.m. by Anchorage Police Officer Myron Fanning after he watched Moussouras drive through a red light at Fifth Avenue and B Street, in Anchorage. Moussouras was the sole occupant of the vehicle he was driving. Officer Fanning contacted Moussouras, smelled the odor of alcohol, and saw that Moussouras's eyes were bloodshot and watery; when asked, Moussouras admitted that he had been drinking. He then performed poorly on field sobriety tests; and showed six clues of impairment during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Officer Fanning arrested Moussouras for DWI, and transported him to a police substation, where an Intoximeter 3000 test was administered. This test showed that Moussouras's breath alcohol content was .141 percent.
Moussouras was charged with misdemeanor DWI under the Anchorage Municipal Code. Although there were a number of delays in getting the case to trial, on the day the trial started (a Thursday), Moussouras's attorney sought an additional delay. When this request was denied, the attorney moved to withdraw. After an inquiry, the request to withdraw was granted; Moussouras was allowed to proceed, representing himself. Moussouras waived a jury trial, but then asked to delay the trial for another day - he ultimately indicated that he desired to speak with the prosecutor's superiors in an effort to have the DWI charge reduced. Judge Ashman partially granted this request. He decided to let the Municipality present its first witness, but said that when this witness was done, the trial would recess until the next Monday - giving Moussouras that afternoon and Friday (and the weekend) to speak with whomever he wished.
The parties then examined the Municipality's first witness, and as promised, Judge Ashman recessed the trial until the next Monday. When the parties reconvened on Monday, however, Moussouras asked Judge Ashman to recuse himself, citing three instances where he believed that Judge Ashman had shown apparent bias against him. Judge Ashman ultimately denied this request, and the Municipality resumed its case, calling its second witness. Later that day, because of the court calender, the trial was recessed until the next day. The next day, Tuesday, the trial resumed, and examination of the second witness continued. After a break, Moussouras renewed his request that Judge Ashman remove himself from the case.
This time, however, Moussouras cited to a statute - apparently AS 22.20.020(c) - and argued that Judge Ashman had a duty to recess the trial and to refer his decision to another judge for an independent review. Judge Ashman disagreed, and denied Moussouras's request to recess the trial; however, he said that he would give Moussouras an opportunity when the parties rested to seek an independent review of the denial of Moussouras's challenge.
Later, after the Municipality rested its case-in-chief, the parties again had to recess, and broke for the day. Judge Ashman at that time told Moussouras that he would have until the next afternoon to ask the presiding judge of the superior court, Judge Elaine M. Andrews, to review Judge Ashman's denial of
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|