 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garrison v. State5/29/2002
No. 4576
Lina I. Garrison appeals her convictions for felony driving while intoxicated and felony refusal to take a breath test. She asserts that her trial was unfair for two reasons. First, Garrison contends that Superior Court Judge Larry R. Weeks was biased against her and should have recused himself. Second, Garrison contends that Judge Weeks abused his discretion when he denied her request to be co-counsel at trial. In addition to these claims, Garrison argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for refusal to take the breath test. Finally, Garrison contends that the superior court violated her rights under the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions when the court convicted and sentenced her for the two offenses of driving while intoxicated and refusal to take a breath test, given the fact that both offenses arose from the same episode.
As explained in more detail below, the record of Garrison's trial reveals that the evidence was sufficient to support Garrison's conviction for refusal to take the breath test. We also conclude that the record does not demonstrate that Judge Weeks was biased against Garrison. We further conclude that Judge Weeks had proper reasons for denying Garrison's request for co-counsel status. Finally, we hold that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit the State from convicting a defendant of both driving while intoxicated and refusal to take a breath test arising from the same incident.
The evidence in this case, and why this evidence is sufficient to support Garrison's conviction for breath-test refusal
When a defendant contends that the evidence fails to support a guilty verdict, we are obliged to view the evidence (and all inferences that might reasonably be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. For this reason, the following recitation of the evidence is presented in the light most favorable to the State.
Late in the evening of February 13-14, 2000, the Juneau police received several reports of a drunken driver. Responding to these reports, Police Officer Robert Haskell contacted Garrison around or shortly after midnight.
When Haskell first observed Garrison, she was passed out behind the steering wheel of her vehicle. The engine was running and the driver's door was open.
Haskell shook Garrison, but she did not respond. He next reached into the vehicle and turned off the engine. Haskell then made efforts to wake Garrison. Once awakened, Garrison had difficulty getting out of her vehicle. When she did get out, she swayed and had to lean against the vehicle to avoid falling down. Garrison was disoriented and, despite Haskell's uniform, she failed to recognize that he was a police officer. Garrison's speech was slurred, her breath had a heavy odor of alcoholic beverages, and her pupils reacted slowly to light.
Haskell asked Garrison if she had been drinking; Garrison declared that she had not. Haskell then administered field sobriety tests to Garrison. Garrison failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and she was unable to complete the walk-and-turn test. She then refused to perform three other requested tests (the one-leg-stand test, an alphabet test, and a counting test).
Based on these observations, Haskell arrested Garrison for driving while intoxicated, and he transported her to the Alaska State Trooper detachment station for a breath test.
At the trooper station, Haskell read the implied consent warning to Garrison - advising her of the penalties for refusing to take a breath test. Haskell read this warning to Garrison several times be
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|