 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Sheboygan v. Taylor6/12/2002
se in traffic forfeiture actions." As an error-correcting court, we are not primarily a law-developing or law-declaring court. That function is normally reserved for the supreme court. State v. Shumacher, 144 Wis. 2d 388, 405, 424 N.W.2d 672 (1988). This is especially so with regard to the issue in this case. We note that in State v. Caibaiosai, 122 Wis. 2d 587, 593-94, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985), the supreme court suggested that OWI is akin to a strict liability offense such that the issue of mens rea is irrelevant. On the other hand, in Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 96, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980), the supreme court commented that an insanity defense had nothing to do with proving or disproving a specific intent and everything to do with a moral issue of whether we are going to hold a mentally ill person responsible for his or her conduct. Thus, this court has no clear-cut guidance from the published decisions of the supreme court which would help in deciding the issue here. If any expansion of the law is to take place where insanity defenses will be allowed in OWI cases in general, and in OWI forfeiture actions in particular, it will have to come from the supreme court. We also note that such a decision would be laden with policy determinations, another reason why this court is improperly equipped to decide the issue.
. Next, Taylor claims that there was insufficient evidence of impairment. He argues that the smell of alcohol is impossible to quantify in terms of how much a person has actually had to drink and that there was no evidence proving whether the officers who smelled the alcohol were experienced in that regard. He dismisses the high rate of speed under slippery conditions as indicative of his insanity rather than any alcoholic impairment and posits that since he was able to keep his car on the road in such conditions, it was more evidence of skilled driving than impaired driving. He further observes that the evidence showed how he was able to abandon the car and run a considerable distance in deep snow before he was apprehended and asserts that this shows how he was physically fit rather than physically impaired.
. For the reasons already stated, Taylor's mental state will not be considered by this court in regards to whether the mental state was the cause of his erratic driving. What we consider is his driving at a high rate of speed with headlights and taillights off, his crossing the center line, his nearly veering off the road at 80 miles per hour and sliding his car in the process, his slurred speech, his glassy eyes, his inability to walk without staggering and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath. All of those factors, taken together, are ample evidence that he was driving while intoxicated by clear and satisfactory evidence. Cases too numerous to mention allow for each of these factors to be considered in determining whether a person was intoxicated while driving.
By the Court. -- Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|