 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bluel v. State6/23/2004
ith this order, the State did not introduce any evidence of the independent test during its case-in-chief. But once Bluel testified that the DataMaster result surprised him, Judge Crutchfield reassessed the relevance of the evidence that Bluel had declined the offer of an independent test.
The admissibility of evidence is "largely within the trial court's discretion and its rulings will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion."We will find an abuse of discretion only when we are "left with a definite and firm conviction, after reviewing the whole record, that the trial court erred in its ruling."
Based on the record in this case, we find no abuse of discretion.
Bluel also argues that Judge Crutchfield failed to perform the balancing test required under Evidence Rule 403. It is true that Judge Crutchfield did not discuss this balancing test. However, the record indicates that he implicitly performed the test, and that he found that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. When the State offered the evidence, Judge Crutchfield reviewed Judge Funk's pre-trial order, which indicated that the evidence was inadmissible absent a showing that it was more probative than prejudicial. When asked why the evidence was relevant, the State told Judge Crutchfield that evidence that Bluel rejected the opportunity to challenge the DataMaster result impeached his testimony that he was surprised by the result the night he was tested. Judge Crutchfield then told the prosecutor that she could ask Bluel if he had been offered the test.
Based on our review of the record, we are convinced that Judge Crutchfield found that, in light of Bluel's testimony that he was surprised by the DataMaster result,the evidence that he declined an independent test was more probative than prejudicial. We find no error.
Bluel also suggests that allowing the State to introduce evidence that he was offered an independent chemical test violated his constitutional rights. He claims that admitting this evidence: (1) violated Miranda and amounted to admitting compelled incriminating testimony; (2) impermissibly commented on his right to remain silent; and (3) "implicate the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." In support of these constitutional claims, Bluel offers little more than conclusory assertions that his rights were violated. These assertions are inadequate to allow meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we consider these claims waived.
Conclusion
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|