 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gates6/26/1989
-plsfield:text-->III.
After the State rested, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, which was denied. Defendant contends that the trial court's denial of the motion was error. We disagree.
We have held that a defendant who presents evidence after a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal made after the close of the State's case waives any error in the trial court's ruling. State v. Kreps, 4 Haw. App. 72, 661 P.2d 711 (1983); State v. Emmsley, 3 Haw. App. 459, 652 P.2d 1148 (1982); State v. Halemanu, 3 Haw. App. 300, 650 P.2d 587 (1982). Here, Defendant not only presented evidence after the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's case, but also failed to move for judgment of acquittal after the close of all the evidence. Thus, Defendant waived his earlier objection to the sufficiency of the State's evidence.
Moreover, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the Intoxilyzer test result admitted into evidence, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Defendant for DUI under both HRS §§ 291-4(a)(1) and -4(a)(2).
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|