 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. State4/2/2002
A: I believe that the Allen vehicle was executing a left-hand turn in an illegal manner across the path of the Fink vehicle, that the driver of the Allen vehicle could have and should have observed the imminent hazard that the Fink vehicle presented to it as it executed that turn. And I also believe the reason that he did not react was due to his intoxication.
[ ] Officer Dye's testimony was admissible under W.R.E. 703, which states:
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Out-of-court statements by a third party ordinarily are inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but may be admissible to show the basis of an expert's opinion so long as other experts in the field would rely on similar evidence. Griswold, 994 P.2d at 927. Appellant does not argue that the State improperly utilized the statements once they were admitted or that, based on Officer Dye's testimony, other experts in the field would not rely upon the statements in forming opinions or inferences on the subject.
[ ] The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Officer Dye to testify to Heather Johnson's statements. The statements clearly formed the basis for, and were relevant to, Officer Dye's opinion that appellant did not perceive or react to the Finks' vehicle in turning across the westbound lane of travel due to his intoxicated state, and also to some degree formed the basis for, and were relevant to, Office Dye's opinion regarding the complete picture of precisely how the collision occurred.
[ ] Appellant further asserts that the district court erred in allowing Tina Evans to testify that Heather Johnson stated, "I told [appellant] to watch out for that car." Appellant has not presented cogent argument or cited to pertinent authority in advancing this argument, and we therefore summarily affirm the district court on this issue. Basolo v. Gose, 994 P.2d 968, 970 (Wyo. 2000).
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT REGARDING PRIOR CONVICTIONS
[ ] Appellant argues that the district court erred in not granting his motion for a mistrial after the State asked appellant on cross-examination if he "had been convicted of felonies twice in the past." Appellant's argument emphasizes the district court's failure, once it decided to strike the question, to instruct the jury as to the "implications of what striking a question had to do with their deliberations." Regarding the mistrial motion, appellant argues that the "jury was able to follow the line of questioning which led to a deliberate question regarding inadmissible testimony which had dire implications for Appellant. Based on this alone, the district court should have granted the mistrial." Appellant does not argue that the State's question violated a pretrial order.
[ ] The question at issue occurred in the following context:
Q: You also made a statement to the paramedic that you don't use illegal drugs?
A: That's correct.
Q: Even though we found all this - we found this marijuana in your system?
A: That's - yeah - that is claimed, yes. But I do not - if you'd like me to clarify, I can on that.
Q: Well, do you use illegal drugs?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Did you state that to the paramedic?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: But, in fact, sir, you have been convicted of felonies twice in the past, have you not?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|