 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bluel v. State6/23/2004
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
[No. 4886 - June 23, 2004]
A jury found Rodney K. Bluel guilty of driving while intoxicated. He appeals, claiming that District Court Judge H. E. Crutchfield erred when he allowed the State, during its cross-examination of Bluel, to introduce evidence that he had been offered and had declined an independent chemical test. For the following reasons, we find no error and affirm Judge Crutchfield's decision.
Facts and proceedings
At about 2:30 in the morning on November 17, 2001, an Alaska state trooper stopped Bluel for a traffic violation on Badger Road in Fairbanks. Upon contact, the trooper noticed indications that Bluel was intoxicated. The trooper administered field sobriety tests, which Bluel failed. Bluel was then arrested for driving while intoxicated. He was later tested on a DataMaster, which showed that his blood alcohol content was 0.091 percent.
After the breath test, the trooper advised Bluel that he had the right to an independent chemical test. Bluel declined.
Before trial, Bluel filed a motion requesting that the district court preclude "any discussion of whether or not a blood test was offered[.]" In his motion, Bluel argued that any evidence that he had declined to get an independent test was more prejudicial than probative. He also claimed that the State should not be allowed to comment on his exercise of a constitutional right. The State opposed Bluel's motion, arguing that it should not be foreclosed from introducing evidence that Bluel refused an independent test if the evidence became relevant at trial.
District Court Judge Raymond M. Funk granted Bluel's motion, construing it as a request for a protective order. Judge Funk's pre-trial order prevented the State from introducing evidence in its case-in-chief that Bluel had been offered an independent test, unless the State showed that the evidence was relevant and more probative than prejudicial.
The trial was conducted before Judge Crutchfield. In accordance with Judge Funk's order, the State did not, during its case-in-chief, introduce any evidence that Bluel had been offered a second test. But during the defense case, Bluel testified. He told the jury that he had consumed only one full drink earlier that evening, and a small portion of another drink just before he drove. He claimed that, in light of the small amount of alcohol he had consumed, he had been surprised that the DataMaster result was so high. Over Bluel's objection, the State was then allowed to impeach Bluel by showing that he had been given a chance to take an independent test but had declined.
Did Judge Crutchfield err when he allowed the State to introduce evidence that Bluel had been offered an independent chemical test?
On appeal, Bluel claims that Judge Crutchfield erred when he allowed the State, during its cross-examination of Bluel, to introduce evidence that he had been offered an independent test. Both Judge Funk and Judge Crutchfield treated this as an evidentiary question.
Before trial, Bluel asked the court to suppress any evidence that he had been offered an independent blood test. Judge Funk granted the pre-trial protective order, precluding the State from introducing this evidence until it made a renewed and greater showing that it was relevant. In accordance w
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|