 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dressel v. State5/26/1999
unned" he "continued to pull away and try and fight[.]" Gilmore also testified that Dressel, in addition to pulling away from the troopers, "was actively resisting [arrest]," that Dressel "continued fighting with me once I got [the handcuffs] on ," and that "[Dressel] didn't want to get in the [police] car and was yelling and . . . squirming around[.]" Gilmore also said that Dressel was assisted into the police car even though he was fighting. In addition, Doty testified that he saw that "Gilmore was having trouble getting [Dressel] . . . into the [police] car," and that Dressel "acted like he was resisting getting into the car."
Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, and considering the statutory definitions of resisting arrest and of force, this evidence and the inferences arising therefrom was sufficient to support Judge Crutchfield's finding that Dressel resisted arrest.
Dressel also contends that there was no evidence concerning the violation with which he claims he was charged: operating an off-road vehicle without the proper equipment. However, while the citation issued by Gilmore indicated that Dressel had violated 13 AAC 02.445, Gilmore had written on the citation that the violation was "ATV on roadway," which is generally prohibited under 13 AAC 02.455.
The record is clear that the state was prosecuting Dressel for operating an ATV on the roadway. At trial, the state in its opening statement said that "in terms of the ATV on a roadway, it's just exactly what it says[.]" Equating this violation to Dressel's DWLR offense, the state also said "the ATV on a roadway is a similar charge with similar elements." Later, the state presented evidence and then argued this was an "ATV on the roadway" violation, and not an equipment violation.
In this case, the citation, and subsequently the judgment, erroneously listed the wrong section of the administrative code. Dressel, however, did not bring this discrepancy to the attention of the trial Judge, nor did he argue below that he did not have adequate notice of the violation he was charged with, that there was an impermissible variance between the offense he was charged with and the offense he was convicted for, or that he was otherwise prejudiced by the trooper's error in writing the wrong section number. The purpose of a charging document is to give the accused a description of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense; a charging document is sufficient if it gives defendant adequate notice of the charge he faces. In light of the citation's notation that Dressel had operated an "ATV on roadway" and the evidence and argument presented at trial, the trooper's mistake when writing the code section did not prejudice Dressel.
Furthermore, our review of the record shows that there was sufficient evidence that Dressel committed the violation of operating his off-road vehicle on the roadway. In addition to the Dotys' testimony placing Dressel on the three-wheeler in the roadway, Gilmore testified that he compared the fresh tire marks in the middle of Sandland Drive with the tires on Dressel's three-wheeler and found that the tracks were similar. Gilmore also testified that Sandland Drive is a public road, and said that Dressel had told him that he had ridden the ATV on Sandland Drive, and knew that it was a public road.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence presented below was sufficient to allow Judge Crutchfield to find that Dressel operated his ATV on the roadway.
We AFFIRM the convictions.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|