 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gillum v. Commonwealth8/26/2004
gain objected on the same grounds and the trial court admitted the statement that it was not his first rodeo on the grounds that the statement was "subject to interpretation" by the jury.
For clarification sake, we will break the statements or testimony into three distinct parts for analysis: (1) Appellant's statement to Captain Smith that this was not his "first rodeo" and that if he exited his trailer he would be arrested for alcohol intoxication (2) Appellant's statement that he was not the driver of the car because he had been at his trailer all afternoon drinking, and (3) Captain Smith's testimony that Appellant was found drinking a longneck Budweiser and was intoxicated.
KRE 402 states that "all relevant evidence is admissible." Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under KRE 404(b) is inadmissible to prove "the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." Such evidence may be admitted, however, " f offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. It is within the "sound discretion" of the trial judge to exclude such evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Upon review, we apply the abuse of discretion standard.
We must determine whether there was an abuse of discretion when the trial court allowed Appellant's statements to be admitted at trial. Appellant's first statement that this was not his "first rodeo" should have been excluded because it was irrelevant and ambiguous as to its meaning. The fact that it was admitted as a statement by Appellant, and that it was "subject to interpretation" by the jury does not render such evidence relevant. Appellant's second statement to Captain Smith, however, was admissible because it was admitted for some other purpose than to show the character of the accused. Although the record here fails to reflect that the trial court engaged in a proper KRE 403 analysis, it appears that the trial court determined admissibility by concluding that the evidence was admissible for another purpose than to show Appellant's character as his alibi. Furthermore, as this was Appellant's own statement to the police, it was properly admitted. Finally, Captain Smith's testimony as to Appellant's consumption of alcohol and state of intoxication appears to be relevant to the charge of leaving the scene of the accident as the Commonwealth proposed, and was properly admitted. As we have determined that the trial court erred with respect to its admission of the "rodeo" statement, we must also consider whether the errors were prejudicial and whether this case as a whole would have been substantially different had the errors not occurred.
RCr 9.24 provides that no error is grounds for a new trial unless it appears that the judgment is inconsistent with substantial justice. At every stage of the proceeding, courts must disregard error or defects that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. If, upon consideration of the whole case, a reviewing court does not believe there is a substantial possibility the result would have been different, then the trial court error will be held non-prejudicial.
The evidence against Appellant was very nearly overwhelming.
Eyewitnesses identified Appellant as the driver who forced the Moellers from the roadway. Appellant's white vehicle bore unmistakable indicia in the form of red paint i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|