 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Sheboygan v. Taylor6/12/2002
. Bradley R. Taylor appeals his conviction of driving while intoxicated and the trial court order denying his motion to reopen. He acknowledges that no Wisconsin statute or appellate decision allows an insanity defense for traffic forfeiture actions but requests that this court make such law. We will not because it is beyond our powers as an error-correcting court to do so. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was driving while intoxicated. We disagree and affirm the conviction and order denying Taylor's post-conviction motion to reopen.
. Taylor was suspected of violating a domestic abuse injunction. An officer arrived at the scene and saw Taylor puncturing the tires of a car. The officer gave chase and Taylor escaped by getting into his car and driving away. Another officer pursued Taylor. This officer observed that Taylor was driving without his headlights and taillights on even though it was in the middle of the night. He also saw that Taylor was driving well over the speed limit-80 miles an hour at times-even though there was freshly fallen snow on the road. Taylor's vehicle got very close to driving off the right side of the road-to such extent that this driving behavior caused the vehicle to slide. Taylor eventually stopped and abandoned his vehicle; he was subsequently apprehended by other officers called to the scene. One of the officers noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Taylor's breath and slurred speech. Taylor also had difficulty standing. Another officer observed the same things plus bloodshot eyes. At the station house, Taylor was observed to be staggering and in need of being steadied. Taylor also repeatedly asked questions that had been answered before. He refused all requests to perform field sobriety tests and also refused to submit to a chemical test of his breath. He was arrested for violating the domestic abuse injunction, criminal damage to property and eluding an officer. All three of these charges were part of a criminal complaint. Separately, he was charged by uniform citation with violating the City of Sheboygan ordinances for driving while intoxicated.
. Taylor was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) with regard to the charges listed in the criminal complaint. At the OWI trial, Taylor presented no evidence that he was mentally ill. Rather, at the conclusion of the OWI trial, Taylor's counsel reminded the court that it had earlier presided over the criminal proceedings that had resulted in the NGI. The prosecutor responded that NGI is irrelevant to this kind of case where mens rea is not at issue. The court concluded that although Taylor was mentally ill, he was still guilty of OWI.
. Taylor subsequently moved to reopen the conviction. He wanted to present an expert's opinion that the same mental illness which impacted the events leading to his criminal charges also impacted his ability to appreciate his driving conduct. The court denied the motion, stating that NGI did not apply to a forfeiture case. From the judgment and the order denying the motion to reopen, Taylor appeals.
. Neither party disputes that the mental responsibility statute speaks to an insanity defense in the context of criminal conduct. The parties correctly state the law. The statute defining the mental responsibility of a defendant is found in Wis. Stat. § 971.15(1), which states, in pertinent part, that " person is not responsible for criminal conduct." (Emphasis added.) All Wisconsin cases that we have researched regarding this statute have been criminal cases. None are forfeiture cases.
. Taylor asserts that " t is time for the higher courts of Wisconsin to specifically allow the NGI defen
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|