Coty v. State1/10/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
[No. 4332 - January 10, 2001]
Following a jury trial, William L. Coty was convicted of felony Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). In this appeal, he contends that Criminal Rule 45, the speedy trial provision, was violated. He also contends that it was error to inform the jury that he was charged with felony DWI. For the reasons set out below, we affirm Acting Superior Court Judge Mark I. Wood's ruling that Rule 45 had not been violated, and his decision to inform the jury that Coty was charged with felony DWI.
Facts and Proceedings
Coty was arrested for DWI on November 7, 1997, and was arraigned on a criminal complaint on November 8. Sometime after Coty's arrest, but before the first trial, the arresting officer was killed, which created a number of unusual evidentiary issues. Coty's first trial began in mid-June, 1998, and ended in a mistrial. At his second trial, however, a jury found him guilty of felony DWI.
Prior to his first trial, Coty had moved to dismiss, asserting that there had been a violation of Criminal Rule 45. Judge Wood, in a brief written order, denied this motion.
At Coty's request, the second trial was bifurcated - the jury first determined whether Coty, on November 7, 1997, was driving while intoxicated; Judge Wood then determined whether Coty had the requisite prior DWI convictions. Before the trial began, however, Coty objected to Judge Wood's instructing the jury that Coty was charged with felony DWI. Coty essentially argued that the jury should not hear anything to indicate that the charge was a felony until they had resolved the underlying DWI charge. Judge Wood overruled this objection. The jury ultimately convicted Coty and he now appeals.
Discussion
Was Criminal Rule 45 Violated?
Coty contends that, prior to his first trial, Criminal Rule 45 was violated. Coty was charged on November 8, 1997, so the 120-day period began to run on November 9, 1997. The clock was tolled on December 23, 1997, when Coty filed various motions. These motions remained undecided for some time, and Judge Wood later ruled that the Rule 45 clock restarted on February 8, 1998, the 31st day on which the motions remained under advisement.
On March 27, 1998, the state filed a motion in limine to resolve certain evidentiary issues created by the death of the arresting officer. On March 31, Coty filed an opposition in which he asked the court to suppress various portions of the state's proposed evidence. Coty also separately asked the court to reconsider Coty's earlier request to bifurcate the trial. A hearing was held on the same day, and Judge Wood resolved all of these issues.
The following day, April 1, 1998, the state moved for a continuance of the trial because a subpoenaed witness had, unbeknownst to the prosecutor, temporarily left the state. Over Coty's objection, Judge Wood granted this motion. Coty's trial was ultimately set for Monday, April 27, 1998.
At trial call on Friday, April 24, Coty moved to dismiss, arguing that Rule 45 had been violated. In order to expedite matters, Coty agreed to waive any objection to the period between April 28 and July 11, 1998, so long as he could preserve his claim that Rule 45 expired before April 27.
Judge Wood later denied Coty's Rule 45 motion. In this appeal, Coty renews his contention that Rule 45 expired before April 27, 1998. We conclude that, even when all contested periods are counted in Coty's favor, Rule 45 was not violated.
As explained above, Rule 45 began to run on November 9, 1997, the day after Coty was charged. The Rule 45 clock st
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|