 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Caswell1/30/2001
Reporter of Decisions
Submitted on Briefs: October 6, 2000
Majority:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, and ALEXANDER, JJ.
Concurring:DANA, and SAUFLEY, JJ.
Dissenting:CALKINS, J.
Patricia Caswell appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Atwood, J.) following a jury trial convicting her of a third offense of operating under the influence. The operating under the influence charge was a Class D offense pursuant to 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411 (1996 & Supp. 2000) with two prior convictions as aggravating factors. Caswell contends that the court erred in (1) ruling that a competing harms justification, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(1) (1983) was not generated by the evidence, and (2) excluding expert testimony in support of her competing harms justification. We affirm.
1. CASE HISTORY
On August 1, 1996, Caswell and a man with whom she had had a prior intimate relationship spent the evening drinking alcoholic beverages at bars in the Augusta area. Although the couple was using Caswell's vehicle, the man was driving because Caswell had just regained her driving privileges and did not want to drive after consuming alcohol.
As the evening progressed, Caswell testified that she began asking the man to take her home because she had to work the next day. Caswell testified that the man was drunk and angry and that he refused to take her home, ultimately taking her to his residence instead. Once at the residence, Caswell testified that she began to walk away. However, her companion followed her in her vehicle and demanded that she get in and return to the residence. Caswell testified that she consented to get in and return to the residence because she was afraid. Caswell testified that she then agreed to have sexual intercourse with the man because she believed that she was not going to get home until she did. During the course of the sexual encounter, Caswell testified that she was forced to engage in several degrading sexual acts which she resisted. Ultimately, she pushed the man off her and left the residence.
Caswell testified that when she left, her attacker was lying on the bed, that she did not know whether or not he was passed out, and that she did not recall him saying anything to her as she left. Caswell also testified that she did not know whether or not the man would follow her, but that she was afraid he was going to "get ahold" of her again.
After leaving the residence, Caswell drove her vehicle to an Irving station in Augusta. There she stopped, entered the station, and purchased a package of cigarettes. Although she stopped, Caswell testified at trial that she thought that her attacker was following her. When she stopped, Caswell also saw two Augusta police officers parked at the Irving station. She did not approach the officers. Caswell testified that she was not about to tell two strange officers what had happened to her and that she would have approached the officers only if she had seen her attacker coming toward her while she was at the Irving station.
Officer Struk of the Augusta Police Department was one of the officers in the Irving parking lot. He saw Caswell's pick-up truck pull rapidly into the parking lot and shortly thereafter leave at a high rate of speed. He followed Caswell's truck in his cruiser and estimated that it was travelling at approximately sixty-five miles-per-hour in a forty-five mile-per-hour zone. He signaled Caswell to stop and she did. When Officer Struk approached Caswell and requested her license and registration, he saw that she was crying, and he detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverages. Caswel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|