 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Cruthers6/30/2005
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART
Rothenberg and Vogt, JJ., concur
Defendant, Lloyd Jean Cruthers, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of vehicular assault, § 18-3-205(1)(b), C.R.S. 2004, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), § 42-4-1301(1)(a), C.R.S. 2004. We affirm the vehicular assault conviction and vacate the DUI conviction.
According to the People's evidence, the victim was injured in an accident while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by defendant. At trial, defendant stipulated that the victim suffered serious bodily injury, but asserted that he was the passenger and the victim was driving when the accident occurred.
I.
Defendant first contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance. We disagree.
A trial court's decision to grant or deny a continuance is entitled to deference and may not be reversed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion. People v. Fleming, 900 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1995). A defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice from being denied a continuance. People v. Chambers, 900 P.2d 1249 (Colo. App. 1994)(defendant failed to show how further investigation would have improved his ability to counter adverse testimony).
Before trial, defendant sought a continuance to obtain the victim's medical records to determine whether serious bodily injury had occurred and to consult an accident reconstruction expert regarding who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The trial court denied the motion without explanation.
Defendant renewed his motion during voir dire because he had not yet received the medical records. The People responded that the records would be provided "in very short order," and the trial court denied the renewed motion. Before presenting his case, defendant told the court that he had reviewed the records and that he "would have to speculate" whether any information in them would be useful to determine who had been driving. Defendant did not request a continuance or a recess at that time.
On appeal, defendant argues that his accident reconstruction expert "express an interest in reviewing [the victim's] medical records from the accident for evidence that could be significant to the case" because he "was unable to opine who was driving the motorcycle based on the discovery, physical evidence and the defendant's medical records."
The medical records are not part of the record on appeal. Defendant does not articulate, based on the contents of those records, any actual prejudice he suffered from denial of a continuance. See People v. Rodriguez, 888 P.2d 278 (Colo. App. 1994). Moreover, once he received the records, defendant did not request a continuance or a limited recess to allow his expert to review them.
Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant a continuance.
II.
Defendant next contends the trial court erred by admitting the laboratory report of his blood alcohol content. We disagree.
Section 16-3-309(5), C.R.S. 2004, states: Any report or copy thereof or the findings of the criminalistics laboratory shall be received in evidence in any court, preliminary hearing, or grand jury proceeding in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the employee or technician of the criminalistics laboratory who accomplished the requested analysis, comparison, or identification had testified in person. Any party may request that such employee or technician testify in person at a criminal trial on behalf of the state before
Page 1 2 3 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|