 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Village of Walworth v. Wood5/10/2000
Cornelia G. Clark Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Walworth County: JAMES L. CARLSON, Judge. Affirmed.
Ryan S. Wood appeals from a judgment imposing forfeitures for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), operating left of center and driving with open intoxicants in a motor vehicle. Wood argues that the circuit court erred when it vacated an earlier order determining that his refusal to submit to a chemical test was proper and then allowed evidence of the refusal at the jury trial. Specifically, Wood complains that the court's action vacating the earlier order was taken sua sponte without an opportunity for him to be heard. He also complains that the court allowed evidence of his refusal at the jury trial without conducting a separate hearing as to whether his refusal was proper.
. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the trial court had the inherent authority to revisit the propriety of its prior order. We also hold that the court gave Wood a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the matter because the court revisited the entire question during the trial of the underlying charges. Finally, we hold that the court did not err in the exercise of its discretion by vacating the prior order and by admitting evidence of Wood's refusal at the jury trial. We therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTS
. The facts are undisputed. During the early morning hours of January 24, 1999, Wood was stopped by a Village of Walworth police officer for erratic driving. After failing several field sobriety tests, Wood was arrested and his vehicle was searched. The search revealed several cans of beer, two of which were open. Wood was issued citations for the municipal ordinance corollaries of Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(1)(a), OWI; 346.05(1), driving left of center; and 346.935(3), open intoxicants in a motor vehicle.
. Wood was transported to the Walworth County Sheriff's Department where he was informed pursuant to the implied consent law. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4). When asked if he would submit to chemical testing, Wood responded that he wanted to talk to his lawyer before he did anything. The officer told Wood that his answer would be considered a refusal and again asked Wood whether he would submit to testing. Wood continued to insist on talking to his lawyer. The officer recorded this as a refusal and issued Wood a notice of intent to revoke under the implied consent law. See § 343.305(9).
. Wood then filed various discovery requests in the refusal proceeding pursuant to State v. Schoepp, 204 Wis. 2d 266, 554 N.W.2d 236 (Ct. App. 1996). The State responded with a motion pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 967.055(2), asking the trial court to "find the refusal reasonable." It appears that the State took this action without prior notice to Wood. In support of the request, the motion stated, "The State submits that this motion to find the refusal reasonable is consistent with the public's interest in deterring the operation of motor vehicle by those who are under the influence of an intoxicant because the Village of Walworth will continue to prosecute the underlying offense." The foot of the motion contained a proposed order finding Wood's refusal to be reasonable. The trial court signed the order. The court did not conduct a hearing on this motion. Wood, of course, makes no complaint
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|