 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oliver v. State12/23/2002
d its case after the testimony of Mr. Oliver, and the court received a question from a juror asking, "Will the judge ask on my behalf when the miscarriage occurred in relation to the DWI?" Defense counsel objected to the question on the basis that there was no testimony linking the miscarriage to the alcohol abuse. After discussion between the court and counsel, defense counsel then objected on the basis that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. After having Mr. Oliver come back to the stand, the court stated, " y first question to you that I've been asked by a juror to ask is when the miscarriage occurred." In response, Mr. Oliver stated that the miscarriage occurred "about ten days after income tax time this past year."
Appellant argues that because the jurors were told by stipulation appellant's history of alcohol abuse and of her fourth DWI offense in June 2001, they could have concluded that the alcohol abuse caused her miscarriage because the two events were close in time. It is suggested that the court's use of the word "when" would have led jurors to link the alcohol abuse to the miscarriage. Appellant also contends that the timing of the miscarriage had no probative value in relation to the punishment for the DWI offense, and that it was prejudicial because it aroused the jurors' emotions and caused them to punish her for the death of her unborn child rather than because she was a repeat drunk driver.
The question asked by the court did not add anything to the evidence already admitted. Mr. Oliver had already testified that appellant had "lost the baby" right before the last DWI offense. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.
Crabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|