 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STEINER v. STATE9/26/1997
, for a mistrial, and for a new trial. These motions were based primarily upon Steiner's motion to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test. Steiner argued that the other evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. In an oral motion made at the close of the State's evidence, Steiner also argued that the State's failure to provide all of the discovery she had requested before trial warranted the dismissal of the case. Because we held in Part I that the results of Steiner's blood alcohol tests were admissible, we address only the discovery issue here.
Before trial, Steiner requested, among other things, that the State produce
"all books, hand-outs, teaching outlines, pamphlets, manuals, or other instructional material . . . physically or orally distributed to students or used or relied upon by instructors at the Alabama Criminal Justice Center or other location at which Trooper Stan Stabler was instructed and received certification on the use and administration of the Intoxilyzer-5000 test."
(C.R. 16.) Steiner's discovery request was granted by the trial court. The implied consent unit of the Alabama Department of Public Safety provided Steiner with an instruction manual used in the certification course for I-5000 operators. During Steiner's cross-examination of Trooper Stabler, Stabler testified that in addition to the manual, he was provided with "copies of forms that we use" and recently issued court cases to read. (R. 64.) Trooper Stabler additionally testified that the instructors lectured from notes during the certification course.
Steiner argues here, as she did below, that the failure of the State to provide the forms, court cases, and notes used by instructors in the certification course warranted a mistrial. Steiner alleged at trial that the evidence not produced by the State was material, but she made no offer of proof as to how she expected to use the items that the State allegedly had failed to produce, nor did she make any showing of prejudice suffered as a result of the State's failure to produce these items.
Whether and to what extent a trial court imposes sanctions for noncompliance with discovery pursuant to Rule 16, Ala. R.Crim.P., rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. McCrory v. State, 505 So.2d 1272, 1279 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). Because Steiner has made no showing as to how the State's failure to provide the requested materials prejudiced her substantial rights, she is not entitled to a reversal on this issue. See McLemore v. State, 562 So.2d 639, 645 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).
For the above-stated reasons, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|