 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stark11/24/2003
961 (App. 1993). We find no error in the trial court's informing the jury of the charges against Stark or in admitting evidence of his prior convictions.
Likewise, our supreme court has "repeatedly rejected" Stark's contention that the reasonable doubt instruction mandated by State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592, 898 P.2d 970 (1995), lowers the state's burden of proof. State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, , 65 P.3d 90, (2003).
Finally, Stark argues that, although he did not object at trial, "prejudicial error" occurred when the trial court admitted evidence of statements he had made to the arresting officer in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and his right to counsel. We find no error, let alone fundamental error. See State v. Balton, 182 Ariz. 290, 297, 896 P.2d 830, 837 (1995). Although Stark argues that his "statements" should have been excluded, he specifically challenges the admission of only one statement -- his answer to the officer's question about whether he had been drinking. This statement was made, however, before Stark was in custody. Therefore, the officer was not required to give Stark the Miranda warnings. See Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 11, 109 S. Ct. 205, 207, 102 L. Ed. 2d 172, 173 (1988) (ordinary traffic stop in which police officer asked minimal number of questions and had defendant perform simple balancing test was not detention requiring Miranda warnings). Nothing in the record indicates this was anything more than a normal traffic stop, at least at the time the officer asked Stark if he had been drinking.
Affirmed.
CONCURRING:
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge
|