 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Samskar v. State1/10/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
[No. 4339 - January 10, 2001]
John A. Samskar was convicted of various charges arising from an incident in which he repeatedly fired a gun in a trailer court. He appeals, contending that the trial judge improperly restricted his argument to the jury. We agree with Samskar, but we conclude that this error was harmless with regard to all but one of Samskar's convictions.
On December 23rd, 1997, Samskar bought a 24-pack of beer and started drinking. After a while, Samskar asked his 10-year-old son, " you want to go have fun?" The "fun" that Samskar had in mind was to take a 9 mm pistol, drive to the Blue Jay Trailer Court in Nikiski, and fire off a clip of ammunition. There was some bad blood between Samskar and James McCarthy, a young man who lived in the trailer court. McCarthy had been dating Samskar's stepdaughter, and the two men had not been getting along.
When Samskar and his son arrived at the trailer court, Samskar stopped near the trailer owned by McCarthy's father. Samskar then fired several shots into the air, but the pistol jammed before he could empty the clip. Samskar tried to free the firing mechanism, but he was unsuccessful, so he and his son went home. Samskar drank some more beer and then passed out.
Meanwhile, residents of the trailer court had summoned the state troopers. Acting on a tip that Samskar was the shooter, the troopers went to Samskar's residence and arrested him for driving while intoxicated and fourth-degree weapons misconduct (possessing a firearm while intoxicated). The troopers took Samskar to Wildwood Correctional Facility and asked him to submit to a breath test. Samskar refused the breath test, but he asked for a blood test. Accordingly, the troopers took Samskar to a local hospital, where a sample of his blood was drawn.
Samskar was ultimately indicted by a grand jury on five counts of third-degree assault (recklessly placing several trailer court residents in fear of imminent physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument). Samskar was also charged (by information) with fourth-degree weapons misconduct , reckless endangerment , driving while intoxicated , and breath-test refusal . Following a jury trial, Samskar was convicted of all but the DWI charge.
Samskar contends that his convictions should be reversed because of an evidentiary ruling at his trial. This evidentiary ruling concerned the sample of Samskar's blood that was drawn at the hospital.
Neither the State nor Samskar had this blood sample tested for alcohol content. But Samskar's level of intoxication was either directly or tangentially relevant to most of the charges against him. With respect to the charge of fourth-degree weapons misconduct, Samskar's intoxication was directly relevant: this charge required proof that Samskar was under the influence of intoxicants when he possessed the firearm.
Samskar's level of intoxication was also potentially relevant to the third-degree assault charges and the reckless endangerment charge. These charges did not necessarily require proof that Samskar was intoxicated, but Samskar's level of intoxication was potentially relevant to the jury's resolution of these charges because, to prove Samskar guilty of either third-degree assault or reckless endangerment, the State had to prove that Samskar acted "recklessly".
For third-degree assault, the State had to prove that Samskar acted recklessly with regard to the possibility that his conduct would place the trailer court residents in fear of imminent physical injury. Similarly, to prove Samskar guilty of reckless endangerment, the State had to prove that
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|