 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anger9/30/2004
tate should have subpoenaed the doctor to verify whether or not it was told to Officer Silva that an injury ... did occur or not. We just have Officer Silva's testimony, and he doesn't even recall the doctor's name.
THE COURT: [DPA]?
[DPA]: Your Honor, at this point, the State's going to argue that ... it's not really going to the truth of the matter asserted. It is the officer's ... state of **635 *428 mind whether there was an injury or there wasn't an injury. And that's ... the purpose[ ] of what we're ... bringing it in for right now.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the ... objection.
[DPD]: If we could have a continuing objection in regards to the hearsay issue. There's clearly a[n] issue of trustworthiness as well, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay....
(Emphases added.) Officer Silva also testified that Anger stated that he had consumed three Ali'i brand beers that night and that Anger's admission was a factor in his determination that Anger had violated HRS § 291-4, see supra note 2.
Following arguments by the prosecution and defense, the district court orally entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
... [Officer Silva] talked to the treating physician that particular evening and found out, in fact, that Mr. Anger did have injuries. [Officer Silva] said [that] because of this injury he went ahead and decided to have Mr. Anger's blood drawn at this particular time.
[Officer Silva] said also that, while talking to Mr. Anger, Mr. Anger did relate to him that he had three Ali[']i brand beers. So, the officer went ahead and said that he also noticed that Mr. Anger not only had the odor of liquor on his breath but that he had red, watery eyes. However, he could not determine whether the red, watery eyes were due to the accident or due, perhaps, to the alcohol.
....
The [c]ourt also heard from Mr. Anger who said he was at the hospital. He said he ... was taken for X rays, [which] came back negative, he had, apparently, no injuries; that he was conscious the whole entire time; that once he was brought out into the ER area, apparently, [a] nurse came up to him, informed him of the discharge papers. He went ahead and signed the discharge papers. Apparently a taxi was called [for] him to leave.
And after he signed the papers, that's when Officer Silva came down and informed him that his blood ... needed to be taken. Further, ... [Anger] did tell [Officer Silva] that he did not want his blood taken, that he was refusing to have his blood taken; that [Officer Silva] went ahead and grabbed his arm and that the nurse eventually was able to extract a blood sample from Mr. Anger.
All right. [The][c]ourt is aware, under [HRS § ] 286-163 [, see supra note 4,] ... even by its title, it says ["]applicable scope of part--mandatory testing in the event of a collision resulting in injury or death.["] Now, I understand as well, when you compare the progeny cases under Wilson and the [Administrative Driver's License Revocation (ADLR) ] sanctions, that there may be some question here about what was told to Mr. Anger and that he was able to do voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently.
However, the [c]ourt is aware as well, when you look under [HRS § ] 286- 163, I think comparing that with [HRS § ] 286-151 [, see supra note 5], when you're comparing forcible extraction versus ADLR sanctions, that we are looking at apples and oranges, ... and the two don't mix, necessarily.
Subsection [ (a) ] [of HRS § 286-163] does say ["]nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent the police from obtaining a sample of breath, blood, or urine as evidence of intoxication or influence of drugs from the driver of any vehicle involved in a collision resulting in injury to or the death of any person["]--it says any person, d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|