 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Parson6/17/2004
hether the information on the typewritten form was inaccurate or incomplete. He chose not to do so. The fact that Juror No . 28117 was the president of a medical staff company leaves us skeptical that Appellant would have exercised a peremptory strike against him solely on grounds that he was "irresponsible ." We note that Appellant did not claim entitlement to a mistrial on grounds that three additional jurors, Nos. 494, 23788, and 26060, whom he failed to peremptorily strike also, did not fully complete their original forms. Juror No. 491 did not request excusal from jury service because she worked at night . If Appellant desired to excuse night-shift workers, he could have inquired during voir dire whether any prospective jurors were so employed . He might have learned that Juror No . 491, like many persons in public employment, had been excused from work while performing jury service. When the issue was raised, the trial judge noted and no one disagreed that Juror No. 491 appeared highly attentive and exhibited no signs of being tired or sleep deprived . With respect to Juror No . 23788, if Appellant was truly concerned whether a juror considered an inquiry into marital status and occupation an invasion of privacy, he could have so inquired during voir dire . We note in passing that defense counsel refused the prosecutor's offer to have Juror No. 23788 excused as an alternate juror. The bottom line on this issue is that it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have denied Appellant and his counsel access to the original forms since they contained the jurors' home addresses . That being so, the trial court could not have abused its discretion in limiting the time for defense counsel to peruse the forms for evidence that might have prompted the exercise of a peremptory strike.
II . URINALYSIS RESULTS.
A screen of a urine sample taken from Appellant at University Hospital approximately one hour after the accident was positive for unquantified amounts of cocaine and marijuana . Appellant made a motion in limine to suppress expected testimony from Dr. George Rodgers, a toxicologist, that "on the night of the accident, a test of appellant's urine revealed traces of cocaine and marijuana." In fact, prior to Dr. Rodgers's testimony, Alberta Kummer, a medical technician employed at the hospital, testified without objection that she was the person who tested Appellant's blood and urine samples and that the urine screen was positive for cocaine and marijuana . Also without objection, Kummer introduced a printout of her test results, which is found in the record as Commonwealth's Exhibit 8. It was this exhibit that was presented to Dr. Rodgers to inform him of the test results . Thus, there was no violation of the motion in limine.
Dr. Rodgers testified that traces of marijuana can remain in the body for weeks after ingestion but that traces of cocaine will disappear within twenty-four hours. He could not say when in the twenty-four hour period Appellant had ingested the cocaine but admitted that he also could not say that Appellant had not ingested the cocaine immediately prior to operating his vehicle. And, although he testified in detail to the effects of a blood alcohol concentration of 0.238 grams per deciliter on the motor skills and judgment of a person with that amount of alcohol in his system, he did not know what additional effect would result from a mixture of alcohol and cocaine . Appellant did not move to strike either Kummer's or Rodgers's testimony but only moved for an admonition to the jury to disregard all evidence of marijuana and cocaine as irrelevant . The motion was denied.
We upheld the admission of almost identical evidence in b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|