 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woods v. State4/7/1999
chols to explain why, even after hearing testimony, the Alaska Legislature had not changed the DWI law. Judge Lombardi, ruling that she was not going to allow Woods to "get into what the legislature did or didn't do," could properly limit further cross-examination of Echols on this issue. Not only was this evidence not very probative, but Echols did not purport to be an expert on the legislature's reasoning concerning the DWI law. Moreover, Judge Lombardi allowed Woods to continue her cross-examination - she merely limited the inquiry into the legislative process. We find no error.
Woods' final claim is that Judge Lombardi erred when she overruled Woods' objection that the prosecutor made improper comments during his rebuttal argument. During her closing, Woods urged the jury to find that her behavior during her contact with DeCoeur was not evidence of impairment, but was the product of, among other things, her mental illness. She asked the jury to rely on her medical records, on the doctor called as a defense witness, and on the portion of the audiotape played to the jury. The prosecutor, in rebuttal, noted that Woods actually had not provided the jury with any evidence supporting her claim of mental illness and asked them to reject it.
Woods' assertion that this comment improperly shifted the burden of introducing evidence is meritless. In presenting closing argument to the jury, "counsel may properly discuss the facts actually in evidence and any inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom." Closing remarks "need only be within the range of reasonable inference which could be drawn from the evidence to be permissible." By focusing on her claim of mental illness, Woods was affirmatively placing the issue of her mental capacity before the jury. As Judge Lombardi ruled, the state "has the ability to rebut any argument that you've made, and you made an argument that [Woods] was mentally ill." The state was entitled, in rebuttal, to comment on the evidence, or the lack of it, and to urge the jury to reject Woods' defense - particularly when there was little evidence of mental illness. We find that the state's comments on the evidence Woods had provided were proper. In addition, immediately after the state's rebuttal, Judge Lombardi instructed the jury. Jury Instruction No. 1 addressed the presumption of innocence and the fact that
" he burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. This burden never shifts throughout the trial, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence."
Accordingly, we find no error.
We AFFIRM Woods' convictions.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|