 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffries v. State5/14/2004
relevant or was so unfairly prejudicial that it should have been excluded under Evidence Rule 403.
For the reasons explained in the preceding section of this opinion, we reject Jeffries's arguments. The jury had to decide Jeffries's degree of recklessness. In this context, the evidence of Jeffries's prior convictions was offered, not to prove his characteristic behavior, but rather to establish his level of awareness of the risks created by his driving while intoxicated. [FN43]
FN43. Accord, Fleming, 739 F.2d at 949; Patterson, 518 So.2d at 814. See also State v. Goodman, 357 N.C. 43, 577 S.E.2d 619 (2003) (approving the analysis of the dissenting opinion in the intermediate court of appeals, 560 S.E.2d at 206: although a defendant's prior driving convictions are admissible to prove the malice aforethought required for second-degree murder, the admissibility of those prior convictions is constrained by the requirements that the convictions be (1) recent and (2) based on similar driving misconduct).
Likewise, Jeffries's repeated refusal to participate in court-ordered alcohol treatment programs, and his refusal to abide by the condition of probation that barred him from drinking, were both relevant to show the degree of Jeffries's disregard for the safety of others. This evidence tended to prove that Jeffries had been put on notice that his drinking behavior was dangerous to others and had to change, and it also tended to prove that Jeffries consciously refused to act on these warnings.
Conclusion
The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|