 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thompson7/24/1996
esulted without the error." State v. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d 692, 696 (N.D. 1995); see State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435, 442-43 (N.D. 1995). If not, the error is "harmless" under NDRCrimP 52(a) and not grounds for reversal.
The car accident was only briefly mentioned twice during the trial, and its prejudicial effect as improper character evidence would be slight because the accident was unlike the charged crime. It is unlikely the jury inferred, because Thompson swerved to miss a deer and rolled his car two years before this stop, that he must have been driving under the influence or with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater at the time of this stop. Moreover, the other evidence against Thompson, particularly the Intoxilyzer test result of 0.16t, was strong.
Thompson has not convinced us "a different decision would have resulted" without the brief references to the car accident. Eugene, 536 N.W.2d at 696. Therefore, we conclude it was harmless error for the trial court to allow the jury to hear evidence of the car accident.
We affirm Thompson's conviction.
GAIL HAGERTY, D.J., sitting in place of NEUMANN, J. and ALLAN L. SCHMALENBERGER, D.J., sitting in place of MARING, J., disqualified.
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|