 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yang v. State2/11/2005
tory warnings are unnecessary to prove the crime, and if the crucial question is whether the defendant understood that they were legally obligated to take the test, then it seems incongruous to prohibit the State from introducing evidence of the defendant's refusal to take the test simply because the defendant did not receive warnings that are of no consequence to the decision of the case. For this reason, we are not certain of the continuing vitality of this portion of Svedlund.
However, Yang does not raise either of these issues. Rather, he argues only that the three warnings listed in AS 28.35.032(a) are elements of the State's proof in a prosecution for breath test refusal. Svedlund and Brown clearly hold that these statutory warnings are not elements of the crime. We therefore reject Yang's attack on the jury instructions.
Yang's Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal
Before trial, Yang asked Judge Erlich to dismiss the breath test refusal charge. Yang argued that, in a prosecution for breath test refusal, the State was obliged to prove that the defendant received and understood the three warnings listed in AS 28.35.032(a). He contended that his lack of proficiency in English prevented him from understanding the three statutory warnings.
Judge Erlich declined to decide this issue until he had heard the evidence at trial. (Indeed, it is unclear whether Alaska law allows a defendant to seek pre-trial resolution of a criminal case on a disputed issue of fact. ) At the conclusion of the State's case, Yang raised this issue again, this time in a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the breath test refusal charge. Yang conceded that the State's evidence showed that he received the three warnings listed in AS 28.35.032(a), but Yang again argued that, due to his lack of proficiency in English, the State failed to show that he understood these warnings.
As we explained in the preceding section of this opinion, the three statutory warnings are not elements of the crime of breath test refusal. Thus, to prove the breath test refusal charge, the State was not obliged to prove that Yang understood these warnings. Rather, the State was obliged to prove that Yang understood (or reasonably should have understood) the purpose of the breath test, and that Yang understood (or reasonably should have understood) that he was legally required to take the test.
Judge Erlich concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that Yang understood these things when he decided not to take the breath test. We agree.
We note, in particular, that the jury listened to a recording of the police contact with Yang. During the field sobriety tests, when Officer Steen asked Yang to perform a balance test that required Yang to count, Yang indicated that "my problem is English". Officer Steen explained the test again, and demonstrated it. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, this tape showed that Yang followed Officer Steen's directions in performing the field sobriety tests, and that Yang responded appropriately to Officer Steen's questions by identifying himself and his vehicle, by confirming that he did not wear contact lenses or glasses, by stating that he had driven from Beach Road, and by denying that he had been driving recklessly. Morever, when Yang testified at trial, he conceded that, after he told Steen that he had difficulty with English, "they kind of communicated smoothly".
It is true that Yang testified that he did not know the legal meanings of the terms "charge" and "refusal", and that he did not understand that he would be charged
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|