 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tobiasson1/20/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
Appellant Thomas Tobiasson was charged and convicted after a jury trial of aggravated driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration of.08 or more, each with a suspended, revoked, or cancelled driver's license. After the trial court found he had two prior felony convictions, it sentenced him to aggravated, concurrent prison terms of twelve years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 299, 451 P.2d 878, 880 (1969), raising two arguable issues. Tobiasson has filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
Counsel first asks us to consider whether inadmissible hearsay was admitted at trial based on the testimony of the custodian of records from the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), who used the MVD records to testify. Counsel suggests that the information should not have been admitted through this witness because she was merely a custodian of records and did not have personal knowledge of the information in the documents. Additionally, counsel argues that the trial court erred by permitting the witness to testify over defense counsel's objection about a license suspension from another state.
At trial, defense counsel had argued that the testimony was improper because counsel was trying to bootstrap the evidence about a license suspension in another state to the information about Tobiasson's Arizona license status. Counsel's actual objection was to the admission of the information within documents relating to action taken in another jurisdiction without the certified copy of the records from that jurisdiction. The prosecutor then reassured the court and defense counsel that the state would not be admitting the entire MVD abstract, which he maintained was admissible in any event, but that the custodian would merely be using the abstract to testify. That, in fact, is what occurred. And Tobiasson did not object to the custodian's testimony. Unless an objection is timely and sufficiently specific, it is not preserved for appellate review. State v. Hamilton, 177 Ariz. 403, 408, 868 P.2d 986, 991 (App. 1993). "A general objection... will not be sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Furthermore, an objection to the admission of evidence on one ground will not preserve issues relating to the admission of that evidence on other grounds." Id. (citations omitted). Thus, because the only objection below was to the admission of records that were never admitted, the issue is waived.
Counsel as well as Tobiasson in his supplemental brief challenge the trial court's denial of Tobiasson's motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 20, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 17 A.R.S., claiming, as counsel did below, there was insufficient evidence that he had notice that his license was suspended based on confusion regarding his address. A Rule 20 motion may be granted only "if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20. Substantial evidence may be either circumstantial or direct and is evidence that a reasonable jury can accept as sufficient to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, , 975 P.2d 75, (1999). In reviewing the trial court's ruling on the motion, we are required to view the evidence and all inferences therefrom in the light that is most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling. State v. Neal, 143 Ariz. 93, 98, 692 P.2d 272, 277 (1984). If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences that might be drawn from the evidence, the m
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|