 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kidwell v. State2/23/2005
ch a result."
We have considered the evidence that supports Kidwell's conviction. Deputy Godfrey testified that the pursuit of Kidwell lasted no more than two minutes. Deputy Godfrey identified Kidwell as the person who did not stop when he turned on his blue lights and siren to initiate a traffic stop. Kidwell traveled at high rates of speed as law enforcement officers pursued him. Deputy Godfrey testified that Kidwell met a car on the highway while he was driving erratically. There were two passengers in Kidwell's car. Kidwell admitted that he ran two stop signs and that he had outstanding arrest warrants at the time of the pursuit. Deputy Godfrey testified about the brightness of his lights and the loudness of his sirens, and he stated that he did not believe that Kidwell did not see him during the pursuit. The pursuit ended when Kidwell ran his car into a ditch from a county road. This amounts to substantial evidence that, in an effort to avoid being arrested by law enforcement officers, Kidwell purposely drove his car in a manner that created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to other persons and manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life. See Pierce v. State, 79 Ark. App. 263, 86 S.W.3d 1 (2002) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict appellant of fleeing when there was testimony that appellant ran a yield sign, narrowly escaped a collision, passed cars in a no-passing zone, drove on the wrong side of the street over a "blind" hill, ran two stop signs, lost control of his car when attempting to negotiate another turn, and as a result, slid into a chain-link fence).
Kidwell denied that he fled from the officers, but the jury was not required to believe his self-serving testimony. See Winbush v. State, 82 Ark. App. 365, 107 S.W.3d 882 (2003). The jury was free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony and could resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence by choosing to believe the State's accounts of the facts rather than Kidwell's. See Phillips v. State, 344 Ark. 453, 40 S.W.3d 778 (2001). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considering evidence that supports Kidwell's conviction, substantial evidence exists to convict Kidwell of fleeing.
A trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for mistrial, and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226, 118 S.W.3d 542 (2003). A mistrial is a drastic remedy and should be declared when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial, or when it cannot be cured by an instruction. Id, 118 S.W.3d 542.
At trial, the prosecutor asked the deputy to describe Kidwell's behavior and mental state during Kidwell's transportation to the police station. The deputy replied, "He was visibly upset, he was crying. He stated that he was sorry ... that he'd run and he asked about the passengers in the car." Kidwell's attorney immediately objected to the deputy's testimony regarding Kidwell's statements to the deputy. Kidwell's attorney stated that he did not know about these statements and did not have an opportunity to file a motion to suppress the statements, and he asked the trial court to strike the statements from the record. The prosecutor stated that he did not know that the deputy was going to mention any statements made by Kidwell and that he found out about the statements contemporaneously with Kidwell's attorney. The judge, prosecutor, and Kidwell's attorney had an extensive conversation on how to handle the fact that the jury heard these statements. Kidwell's attorney ma
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|