 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Gonzalez3/25/2004
Defendant Alberto Sanchez Gonzalez was charged with several violations of the Vehicle Code, including driving while intoxicated and driving with a revoked license. His defense at trial was that he was not driving. A jury convicted him on all charges.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in rejecting his proffered stipulation and admitting evidence of his prior convictions. He also claims instructional and cumulative error.
As we explain below, we reject all of defendant's contentions, and we affirm the judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
The incident that led to this proceeding took place on the evening of August 22, 2002 in San Jose. An off-duty police officer noticed defendant driving erratically, called 911, and followed defendant until he stopped. Other law enforcement officers arrived on the scene and arrested defendant.
The Charges
Defendant was charged by information with violating the Vehicle Code. [FN1]
FN1. Further unspecified statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.
The information included one felony count of driving while intoxicated, with three or more prior convictions. (§§ 23152/23550, subd. (a).) The felony count included an allegation that defendant refused a chemical sobriety test. (§ 23577, subd. (a).)
The information also charged defendant with three misdemeanor counts of driving while his license suspended or revoked for reasons specified in the relevant Vehicle Code provisions. (§§ 14601.2, subd .(a) [suspension or revocation for driving while under the influence]; 14601.5, subd. (a) [suspension or revocation for refusal to submit to a chemical sobriety test]; 14601.1, subd. (a) [suspension or revocation for "any reason other than those listed" in enumerated sections].)
In Limine Matters
The case was tried in December 2002 before a jury. As relevant here, two disputed evidentiary matters were settled outside the jury's presence. We briefly summarize those in limine proceedings at this juncture, later describing them in more detail as necessary to our analysis.
First, defendant offered a stipulation concerning the misdemeanor counts. He proposed to stipulate that his driving privileges were revoked, that he knew of the revocation, and that valid reasons existed for it. Defendant's objective was to prevent the jury from learning that his license revocation was for previous offenses of driving while intoxicated and of refusing a chemical sobriety test. The People refused to acquiesce in the stipulation, arguing that they were entitled to prove the reasons for the revocation as an element of the misdemeanor charges. The trial court rejected the proffered stipulation.
Second, defendant moved to exclude impeachment evidence of his other prior convictions on theft and drug charges. The trial court denied that motion.
The Prosecution Case
The People first called an employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles, who testified to the reasons for defendant's license revocation. She stated that defendant's driving privilege was revoked for refusal to submit to a chemical sobriety test in October 2001. She also testified that defendant had a "prior revocation already on file" for driving under the influence of alcohol.
*2 The People then called the law enforcement officers involved in the incident, beginning with Scott Wilson, the off-duty Santa Clara police officer who initially witnessed defendant's erratic driving.
At trial, Wilson positively identified defendant as the driver. He also described the events leading up to defendant's arrest. Wilson was off-duty, driving in his personal truck on Alum Rock Avenue. As he approached the intersection of White Road, a car traveling in the opposite direction made a sharp left turn in front of his truck, running a red light. Wils
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|