State v. Engesser4/23/2003
the vehicle had rolled, the value of any blood that could be found in the vehicle was diminished. Instead, the expert decided to seek an accident reconstruction.
[ .] On September 13, 2000, Fox contacted Engesser and interviewed him in Fox's cruiser. The interview was videotaped. The following day, Fox finished his report, concluding that based on Finley's injuries, he believed Engesser was the driver. In February 2001, Engesser was charged with vehicular homicide under SDCL 22-16-1, an alternative charge of second degree manslaughter, and two counts of vehicular battery under SDCL 22-16-42.
[ .] Before trial, the defense gave notice of intent to use exculpatory hearsay. The proffered evidence was the testimony of Engesser's civil attorney who was prepared to testify that he had interviewed Sean Boyle, a security guard at the bar where Finley and Engesser spent time the evening of the accident. The attorney would testify that an interview over the phone with Boyle revealed that Finley had been driving at the time the two left the bar and further, that Finley rarely, if ever, allowed others to drive her Corvette. The trial court refused to admit this hearsay.
[ .] The defense also moved to suppress the result of Engesser's BAC. The trial court denied the motion. Engesser proposed two jury instructions dealing with the State's duty to preserve evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from failure to do so. Both jury instructions were rejected. Engesser was convicted of vehicular homicide and two counts of vehicular battery. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the homicide conviction and ten years each on the two convictions of vehicular battery. The ten-year sentences were to run concurrently, with the fifteen-year sentence running consecutively. Thus, he received a total of twenty-five years in the penitentiary.
[ .] Engesser appeals, raising four issues: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying suppression of the result of the blood draw taken "without consent, without reading the implied consent [warning], and without detention or custody." (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion "in allowing the State to elicit answers from Trooper Fox identifying which statements of defendant he believed were untruthful when defendant did not testify." (3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by "disallowing the use of exculpatory hearsay." (4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and denied the defendant due process in failing to give instructions on the duty to preserve evidence and spoliation. Analysis and Decision
[ .] Our standard of review is abuse of discretion for rulings on motions to suppress, State v. Nguyen, 1997 SD 47, , 563 NW2d 120, 122 (citations omitted), for decisions on admissibility of evidence, State v. Rhines, 1996 SD 55, , 548 NW2d 415, 446, for requests to give proposed jury instructions, State v. Wright, 1999 SD 50, , 593 NW2d 792, 797 (citation omitted), and for offers of opinion evidence. State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61, , 627 NW2d 401, 415. If no judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances of the particular case could have reasonably reached the same conclusion, then there was an abuse of discretion. Gilkyson v. Wheelchair Express, Inc., 1998 SD 45, , 579 NW2d 1, 3 (citations omitted). A finding of probable cause is reviewed de novo. State v. Lorenz, 2001 SD 17, , 622 NW2d 243, 244.
1. Admission of Blood Test Result
[ .] The state may require an individual to submit to a test of bodily fluids as long as it acts within constitutional limitations. In determining whether the taking of a blood sample violated the Fourth Amendment, we look first to the United Stat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|