 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Olson v. State7/20/2005
argument as harmless error."
Olson's case was markedly different. The subject matter involved in a drunk driving case, especially one like Olson's (where there was no accident, no injury of any kind, nor any identifiable victim), is nowhere near as emotionally charged as that involved when a defendant, like Patterson, is charged with sexually abusing a child. In addition, although the prosecutor's remarks in Olson's case were more than a passing reference to the jurors' loved ones, the summation was not permeated with improper comments, nor were the jurors misled regarding the reasonable doubt standard.
Moreover, even though the trooper did not see Olson drive poorly, the State's case was strong. Olson's performance on all but one of the administered field sobriety tests was poor. She also had a strong odor of alcohol, watery, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. She was unable to find her driver's license when first stopped - instead, she handed the trooper some sort of bartender identification card. The DataMaster's test showed that her blood alcohol content was nearly two times the legal limit. And at trial she admitted that although she had been drinking that night, she told Trooper Wurst that she had not been drinking.
Although Magistrate Verhagen, by overruling Olson's attorney's objection, may have indicated to the jury approval of the prosecutor's comments, we still conclude, looking at the "totality of the prosecutor's ... final argument in the context of the record as a whole," that the prosecutor's improper remarks during her closing argument "did not appreciably affect the jury's verdict." Conclusion The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|