 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ponder v. State6/28/2000
hat admitting this portion of the tape was plain error. Ponder also argues that Judge Shortell erred in allowing Comegys to testify that she had met Ponder before making the recorded buy and that she recognized him because he had distinctive facial features. Ponder did object to admission of this testimony on the ground that the jury might get the impression that Ponder had made prior drug sales to Comegys. Judge Shortell concluded that the fact that Comegys could identify Ponder, who lived in the same apartment building, did not imply that she had prior drug dealings with Ponder. Judge Shortell's ruling is not an abuse of discretion. The fact that Comegys could readily identify Ponder was relevant, and Judge Shortell could properly determine that this testimony was not unduly prejudicial.
Ponder next contends that Judge Shortell erred in giving the following instructions:
You have heard evidence that Grace Comegys had been convicted of driving while intoxicated and had spent time in a jail-like setting. Such evidence may not be considered by you to prove that Grace Comegys is of bad character or that she has a disposition to commit crimes. Such evidence may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show some bias of Grace Comegys.
Ponder contends that giving this instruction was error because the instruction limited the purposes for which the jury could consider the prior conviction. But Ponder never objected to the instruction. In particular, Ponder argues that the instruction should have said that the evidence could be considered either for "bias" or "motive." Moreover, despite Ponder's technical argument about the purported difference between bias and motive, we believe that a jury would have viewed these terms as essentially synonymous. We fail to see that Judge Shortell committed plain error by giving this instruction.
Ponder argues that Judge Shortell erred in giving the following instruction:
In arriving at a verdict in this case, the subject of penalty or punishment is not to be discussed or considered by you. That matter is one that lies solely with the court and must not in any way affect your decision as to the innocence or the guilt of the defendant.
Ponder argues that the instruction could be interpreted to prevent the jury from considering Comegys' bias because of her fear of punishment. But again, Ponder did not object to this instruction. Ponder has not established plain error. The instruction, properly understood, means that the jury is not to consider what punishment the defendant might receive. The instruction does not prevent the jury from considering the fact that the potential for punishment might bias a witness. The court fully instructed the jury on how to evaluate the bias of a witness.
The 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.
|
|