 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Korotka4/19/2000
waiver.
. The State also argues that the denial of Korotka's motion to suppress was harmless error. Korotka counters that without a trial, the effect of the error cannot be evaluated. State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331, 367-68, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999), was an appeal taken after entry of a no contest plea and the court applied a harmless error analysis to the trial court's refusal to suppress a statement. The court concluded that because the suppressed oral statements were only cumulative evidence of guilt, there was no basis for believing that Armstrong would not have taken the plea agreement or would not have been convicted had suppression been ordered. See id. at 370-71.
. Korotka attempts to distinguish Armstrong on the grounds that the cumulative nature of the written statement here is not as clear as it was in Armstrong. As evidence of weaknesses in the State's case, Korotka cites the prosecutor's statement at a pretrial hearing that the prosecutor "began to fear" that there would be no conviction for reckless homicide if the case went to trial. We place little significance on the prosecutor's then assessment of the case. In reality, the State had a very strong case without the written statement.
. The complaint relates how construction workers followed Korotka after the accident and confronted him when he exited the highway. The workers reported that Korotka asked, "What did I hit?" The first responding officer to the place where Korotka was detained by the construction workers reported that Korotka appeared to be severely intoxicated and acknowledged that he had been in an accident and would take responsibility for it. Before his arrest, Korotka told officer Rodriguez where he got on the highway and that he was heading home. He also said that he knew he had hit something while driving in the right lane but that he did not see what he hit. Not only did these statements not vary significantly from what Korotka told Kindt, but witnesses would testify about the location of construction barrels and vehicles with flashing yellow lights, signs and reflective tape. The workers indicated that Korotka was travelling at a high rate of speed and was unaffected by their attempts to warn him. These witnesses would have had a more compelling impact than anything contained in Korotka's written statement. When tested after the accident, Korotka's blood alcohol level was 0.152%. Given the evidence that Korotka was driving while intoxicated, this is a case like Armstrong where there is no basis for believing that Korotka would not have entered his plea or not have been convicted if his written statement had been properly suppressed. The error was harmless.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5 (1997-98).
|