 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larson v. State9/15/2004
Wayne K. Larson appeals his conviction for driving while under the influence. [FN1] He contends that the district court erred when it refused to exclude evidence that he had declined an independent chemical test, and when it refused to instruct the jury on the necessity defense. For the reasons set out below, we reject Larson's claims.
Facts and proceedings
On December 7, 2002, Fairbanks Police Officer David Stratford investigated a report of a vehicle whose engine had been idling for an extended period in a parking lot near the Midnite Mine bar. When Officer Stratford located the vehicle, its "engine was racing at a high idle." Larson was slumped over in the driver's seat. Larson's foot was pressing down on the accelerator, causing the engine to race. Larson's glasses had fallen off, and his eyes were partially open.
Stratford thought that Larson was asleep or passed out. In an effort to rouse Larson, Stratford tried tapping on the vehicle's window with his flashlight for three or four minutes. When this failed, Stratford switched to his baton and rapped louder. Larson responded to this louder noise.
Stratford noticed signs that Larson was intoxicated. Consequently, Stratford administered the typical field sobriety tests. After Larson failed these, Stratford arrested him for driving while under the influence. A DataMaster test showed that his blood alcohol content was .164 percent. After administering the DataMaster test, Stratford informed Larson of his right to obtain an independent chemical test. Larson said he did not want an independent test.
At trial, the State played an audiotape of the contact between Stratford and Larson. This tape included Stratford's advisement that Larson had the right to an independent chemical test. Before this portion was played, Larson objected, asking that his audible response declining an independent test be excluded on Miranda [FN2] grounds. In the alternative, if the court admitted the evidence that he declined an independent test, Larson asked the court to prohibit the State from arguing based on this evidence that he had accepted the DataMaster result. District Court Judge Winston S. Burbank refused to exclude this evidence, ruling that the "officer can testify to the forms he filled out, including the offer of the [blood] test, [and the fact] that ... Mr. Larson refused to take the test. But ... unless there's some other admission by Mr. Larson that I'm not aware of ... the State can't argue ... that he agrees with the result of the [DataMaster]." Neither party mentioned this evidence again.
FN2. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Although Larson did not ask for an evidentiary hearing on this issue, the audiotape apparently indicated that Larson had not been advised of his Miranda rights at the time he declined the independent test.
Larson also sought to raise a necessity defense. He argued that sleeping in his vehicle was necessary, hence justified, because he knew that he was too drunk to drive the vehicle to another location. (Larson did not claim at trial, nor does he on appeal, that he needed to have the vehicle running to keep warm.) After finding that "Mr. Larson had several alternatives other than going into his truck with the ignition key, starting it, and sleeping with the car running," Judge Burbank ruled that he would not give the requested necessity defense instruction.
Discussion
Should the district court have excluded Larson's statement that he did not want an independent chemical test?
*2 On appeal, Larson claims that admitting his statement declining an independent chemical test violated Miranda and his right against self-incrimination. He argues that his statement was incriminating because it created the infere
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|