 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sexton6/4/2002
. Bradley Sexton appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), and operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, contrary to § 346.63(1)(b). Sexton argues that the trial court erred by not exercising its discretion when it ruled that Sexton's sixteen prior convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 906.09. This court concludes that the court erred when it proceeded with a misapprehension of the law and failed to apply the appropriate factors. Accordingly, this court reverses the judgment and remands for a new trial.
Background
. On February 3, 2001, deputy sheriff William Uelmen found a truck in a ditch with Sexton sitting in the driver's seat. Uelmen questioned Sexton and noticed that his speech was slurred. Uelmen also smelled the odor of intoxicants. Sexton failed field sobriety tests, and Uelmen arrested him for driving while intoxicated. Sexton agreed to a blood draw, and his blood alcohol concentration was .206%.
. Just before the trial began, the prosecutor presented Sexton and the trial court with a list of sixteen prior convictions. She requested permission to use all sixteen to impeach Sexton if he testified. Defense counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion and to exclude for impeachment purposes a number of these convictions. Counsel argued that Sexton's record was artificially inflated because some of the convictions were too remote, some involved traffic matters and some involved multiple counts for the same incident. The court nevertheless decided to admit all sixteen convictions for impeachment purposes.
. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Sexton whether he had ever been convicted of a crime. Sexton replied that he had been convicted sixteen times. The prosecutor mentioned the number of prior convictions again in the closing argument and rebuttal. She argued, "We were allowed to get in the evidence the fact that he has 16 prior convictions, because that bears on his credibility, his believability;" and "that's where his prior record comes in, on the issue of credibility." The jury found Sexton guilty, and the trial court entered judgment.
Discussion
. Sexton contends that the trial court erred when it determined that the prosecutor could use all sixteen convictions to impeach him at trial. This court agrees because the trial court failed to engage in the balancing that Wis. Stat. § 906.09 requires or apply the factors set forth in State v. Smith, 203 Wis. 2d 288, 295-96, 553 N.W.2d 824 (Ct. App. 1996). The court also proceeded under a misapprehension of the law regarding admissibility of prior convictions. These legal errors make the court's exercise of discretion erroneous. Popp v. Popp, 146 Wis. 2d 778, 786, 432 N.W.2d 600 (Ct. App. 1988).
. Whether to admit prior conviction evidence for impeachment purposes under Wis. Stat. § 906.09 is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Kruzycki, 192 Wis. 2d 509, 525, 531 N.W.2d 429 (Ct. App. 1995). When reviewing a discretionary decision, this court considers only whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion and not whether this court would have made the same ruling. Id. A court properly exercises its discretion when it correctly applies legal standards to the facts of record and uses a rational process to reach a reasonable conclusion. State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis. 2d 722, 745-46, 467 N.W.2d 531 (1991).
. Wisconsin Stat. § 906.09(1) creates the general rule that prior convictions are admissible for the purpose of attacking a witness' credibility. This general rule is limited by § 906
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|