 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Samskar v. State1/10/2001
al judge infringed Samskar's constitutional rights when he precluded Samskar's attorney from making this argument to the jury.
With respect to the charge of breath-test refusal, we conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Intoxication is not an element of this offense. We therefore affirm that conviction.
With respect to the charge of fourth-degree weapons misconduct (possessing a firearm while intoxicated), intoxication was an element of the State's proof. We conclude that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict on this count was affected by the improper limitation on Samskar's summation. We therefore reverse that conviction.
With respect to the remaining charges - the five counts of third-degree assault and the count of reckless endangerment - we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true, as explained above, that Samskar's intoxication was potentially relevant to these charges - because of the intoxication clause contained in the statutory definition of "recklessly". However, having reviewed the evidence, we do not believe there is any reasonable possibility that the jury convicted Samskar on an intoxication theory.
Under the definition of recklessness contained in AS 11.81.900(a)(3), the intoxication clause comes into play only if the State fails to prove that the defendant was subjectively aware of the substantial possibility that their conduct might lead to the result forbidden by the statute. In the case of third-degree assault charged under AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), the forbidden result is placing people in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument.
Samskar drove to a trailer court and, from the midst of the residences, he purposely and repeatedly discharged a firearm. There was no evidence to suggest that Samskar was unaware of the possibility that his conduct might cause the trailer park residents to fear imminent serious physical injury. In fact, there was substantial evidence to suggest that this was Samskar's intent, at least with respect to the McCarthy family. We therefore conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdicts on the assault and reckless endangerment charges were affected by the improper restriction on Samskar's final argument. Accordingly, we affirm these convictions.
In sum: Samskar's conviction for fourth-degree weapons misconduct is REVERSED, but all of his remaining convictions are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|