 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Coffee2/12/2004
On November 25, 1998, Defendant-Appellant Nicole N. Coffee (Coffee) was charged by complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) with the following:
Count I, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUI-Drug), in violation of Hawai'i **1003 *194 Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-7 (1993); [FN1] and
FN1. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-7 (1993) provides in relevant part:
§ 291-7 Driving under the influence of drugs. (a) A person commits the offense of driving under the influence of drugs if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under
the influence of any drug which impairs such person's ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner. The term "drug" as used in this section shall mean any controlled substance as defined and enumerated on schedules I through IV of chapter 329.
Count II, Noncompliance with Speed Limit, in violation of HRS § 291C-102(a) (1993). [FN2]
FN2. HRS § 291C-102 (1993) provides in relevant part:
§ 291C-102 Noncompliance with speed limit prohibited. (a) No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than a maximum speed limit and no person shall drive a motor vehicle at a speed less than a minimum speed limit established by county ordinance.
The circuit court remanded the case to the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court) for a bench trial. On November 18, 1999, Coffee was found guilty of the DUI-Drug charge. [FN3] Coffee's motion to stay her sentence pending appeal was granted by the district court. Judgment was filed on October 9, 2003.
FN3. The Honorable George Y. Kimura presided.
On appeal, Coffee contends: (1) the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence without holding a hearing or issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) the district court erred in taking judicial notice of Police Officer Sherman Dowkin's (Officer Dowkin) expertise as a Drug Recognition Expert and the 12-Step Drug Recognition Evaluation Matrix (matrix test) to recognize drug impairment; (3) the evidence was legally insufficient to support a DUI-Drug conviction; (4) Coffee received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) the district court erred in denying Coffee a jury trial.
II.
Coffee was arrested on July 15, 1998. At her arraignment on November 20, 1998, Coffee requested a trial by jury for the DUI-Drug charge, and the case was transferred to circuit court. On December 23, 1998, the State filed a Motion to Remand Case to the District Court of the First Circuit for Trial on the Merits (Motion to Remand). On January 28, 1999, the circuit court [FN4] granted the Motion to Remand, finding that because the offense was a petty misdemeanor and not constitutionally "serious," Coffee was not entitled to a jury trial.
FN4. The Honorable Sandra A. Simms presided.
On December 22, 1998, Coffee filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress) based on unreasonable search and seizure and a Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Drug Recognition Expert (Motion in Limine) in which Coffee asked the court to preclude Officer Dowkin from testifying as an expert witness at trial. Prior to the start of trial on August 2, 1999, the district court denied the Motion to Suppress, finding that because the motion had no affidavit or exhibits attached to it and stated merely factual allegations, there was not "sufficient basis to raise the issue."
The district court also denied the Motion in Limine and took "judicial notice by stipulation of the parties" of its prior decision in State v. Danny Wong, where the court had qualified Officer Dowkin as an expert and the matrix test as a sufficient test to determine drug impairment. Durin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|