 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Schleifer2/19/2004
tality of circumstances rather than analyzing each circumstance in isolation.
FN35. Downs v. State, 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del.1990).
FN36. Quoting from the trial court's bench ruling. A371-72
FN37. Appellee's Answering Brief ("Ans.Br.") (Docket No. 15) at 6.
In its decision, the trial court first looked at the accident. It indicated that it did not understand the significance of this particular type of accident, or the manner in which the accident occurred. The trial court then turned to the "odor problem." (A370) The trial court found that the doctor's testimony that he smelled alcohol was "equivocal" in that Dr. Murphy testified he could not recall the thousands of cases he has handled or hundreds of people he has treated. Although the trial court found that Dr. Murphy did relate to Sergeant Peden that there was some involvement of alcohol, it did not assign much significance to this fact because Dr. Murphy was unable to state to what extent and Dr. Murphy was not certain he even knew the hospital blood results prior to communicating his opinion to Sergeant Peden.
After carefully reviewing the transcript of the suppression hearing and the record in this case, the Court concludes that the trial court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances in the light most favorable to the State. Instead, the trial court isolated the accident and the odor of alcohol, sought an innocent explanation for the accident independent of the other circumstances, and thus imposed an improper burden on the State. The Court is not suggesting that the trial court's factual findings are based on insufficient evidence. Rather, the Court holds that the analysis applied by the trial court was erroneous as a matter of law. As the Supreme Court of Delaware held in State v. Maxwell, [FN38] the trial court may not discount the probative value of each fact revealed by the police investigation because the police failed to eliminate possible innocent explanations for the existence of each of these facts. "Such an investigation, and the concomitant burden of proof which requiring such an investigation carries, is not a condition precedent to finding probable cause." [FN39] Because the Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the hospital blood evidence and committed legal error in its analysis by focusing upon each fact independently, rather than viewing the facts under the totality of circumstances, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and remanded for consideration in accordance with this opinion.
FN38. 624 A.2d 926 (Del.1993).
FN39. Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930.
*11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|