 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Norton4/9/2003
. This is a review of a refusal hearing arising out of an operating while intoxicated arrest (OWI). At the refusal hearing, the State presented plausible evidence that the arresting deputy had probable cause to believe that Michael V. Norton was driving while intoxicated and that he refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood. Therefore, we affirm.
. On May 25, 2002, Norton was stopped for OWI. He refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood and, as a result, a refusal hearing under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 was conducted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that Norton was driving while intoxicated, the informational requirements of § 343.305 had been met and Norton's refusal was unreasonable. Accordingly, the court ordered Norton's driving privileges revoked for one year. Norton appeals.
. Norton's first complaint is that " he circuit court erroneously functioned as a partisan and advocate by assisting the state to meet its burden of proof." Norton criticizes the trial court for expanding the scope of redirect examination to permit the law student intern representing the State to introduce evidence to establish probable cause for the traffic stop; he also criticizes the court for asking questions of the arresting officer. Norton did not make a timely objection to the trial court's expanding the scope of redirect examination to permit the law student intern to establish probable cause for the traffic stop nor did he make a timely objection to the trial court's questioning of the arresting officer.
Objections to [the trial court questioning witnesses] must be timely made. A failure to make a timely objection constitutes a waiver of objection. The objection must be made as soon as the objectionable nature of the testimony is reasonably apparent. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has consistently held that they will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Wolter, 85 Wis. 2d 353, 373, 270 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1978).
. The purpose of the "waiver rule" is to promote timely objections.
The waiver rule serves several important objectives. Raising issues at the trial court level allows the trial court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first place, eliminating the need for appeal. It also gives both parties and the trial judge notice of the issue and a fair opportunity to address the objection. Furthermore, the waiver rule encourages attorneys to diligently prepare for and conduct trials. Finally, the rule prevents attorneys from "sandbagging" errors, or failing to object to an error for strategic reasons and later claiming that the error is grounds for reversal. For all of these reasons, the waiver rule is essential to the efficient and fair conduct of our adversary system of justice. State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, , 235 Wis. 2d 486, 611 N.W.2d 727 (citations omitted).
The lack of a timely objection prevents our review of this issue.
. As part of this complaint, Norton disapproves of the trial court's apparent reason for expanding the scope of redirect examination and questioning the arresting officer. Norton asserts that the trial court had assumed responsibility for the law student intern who represented the State without the direct and immediate supervision of an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. Yet again, Norton failed to make a timely objection to the participation of the law student intern without the direct and immediate supervision of a licensed attorney. A timely and specific objection bringing to the trial court's attention the requirements of SCR § 50.06 could have allowed the cour
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|