 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HICE v. STATE5/2/1984
In this criminal case, the appellant appeals his conviction for the charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The appellant was charged and convicted in Conway County Municipal Court of DWI, and was charged but acquitted of refusal to take a breathalyzer test. The appellant appealed his conviction for DWI to the Conway County Circuit Court. At the subsequent circuit court trial, the State moved in limine to prohibit any testimony concerning the breathalyzer test. This motion was granted on the grounds that this testimony would not be relevant to the issues before the court in the Circuit Court trial. The appellant was found guilty by a jury and fined $500.00. From that decision, comes this appeal.
For reversal, the appellant argues that it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow the appellant and the appellant's witness to testify concerning the arresting officer's refusal to give the appellant a breathalyzer test. Also, the appellant alleges that the court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine the arresting officer concerning his refusal to administer the breathalyzer test.
As to the first point, a brief account of the facts surrounding the appellant's arrest and subsequent charge of DWI is necessary. The appellant was stopped at approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 23, 1983, after his vehicle was allegedly observed swerving across the center line of the highway. The arresting officer testified that the appellant failed a field sobriety test. The appellant was taken to the police station where he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test until his attorney could be summoned. Some 30 to 40 minutes later, the appellant's attorney arrived and questioned the arresting officer. The appellant claims that, at this time, he and his attorney requested that the officer
administer a breathalyzer test. The officer allegedly refused because too much time had passed since the arrest.
The appellant argues that the State's Motion in limine should have been denied and the testimony about the officer's alleged refusal to administer the breath test and his subsequent charge against the appellant of refusal to take the test should have been admitted. The appellant's defense was that he was not intoxicated, but that the arresting officer had treated him harshly and filed the charges against the appellant as a result of his attitude toward the appellant rather than a belief that the appellant was actually violating the law by operating his automobile while intoxicated. The trial judge ruled that the evidence was not relevant in that the State's case would stand or fall on the subjective observations of the policeman and the test, which was not administered was not relevant. We disagree and therefore we reverse.
The appellant asserts that this excluded evidence was relevant. The Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 401, Ark. Stat. Ann. 28-1001 (Repl. 1979), defines relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." One fact which was of consequence in this case was the credibility of the arresting officer. The appellant argues that if the arresting officer had actually believed that the appellant was intoxicated then he would have given the breathalyzer test when the appellant's attorney arrived at the station. Also, the officer's alleged refusal to administer the test, and his subsequently charging the appellant with refusal to submit to the test, is some evidence that would tend to prove the arresting officer's less than courteous attitude toward the appellant. The appellant's refusal to submit to the tes
Page 1 2 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|