 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. State11/22/2000
d that the truck Boltjes stopped in the trailer park was the same truck he had been chasing.
The evidence firmly linked Green to the truck. When Boltjes pulled in behind the truck, he saw the driver's-side door open and then he saw Green - the sole occupant - emerge from the truck. Boltjes found two sets of keys at the scene. One set, which Green conceded was his, was lying on the seat of the vehicle. The other set, belonging to the truck's owner, Dorcey Ling, was found on the ground near the driver's- side door.
Soon after the stop, the police contacted Ling to see if she knew Green. Ling was home in bed when the police arrived; she had been asleep for hours. Ling testified that she had lent her truck to Green earlier that day; Green brought the truck back in the late afternoon, and he ate dinner at Ling's house. Green had left Ling's keys in the truck when he brought it back, and Ling had not bothered to retrieve the keys. That was the last time Ling saw her truck until the police woke her up early the next morning.
(Although Green denied driving the truck when Boltjes found him, he conceded that he had borrowed the truck from Ling earlier that same day.)
Finally, we note that when Green took the stand at trial, he gave an amended account of his actions: Green testified that, when Boltjes approached him, he had just come from Armstrong's trailer, not because he had been visiting Armstrong, but because he had noticed that Armstrong's gate was open and he had walked over to shut it. Green admitted that, when he told the officer where he had just come from, he might have phrased it in terms of "visiting" Armstrong, but Green asserted that he had not meant anything significant by his choice of words - that, to him, there was "not much difference" between visiting Armstrong and shutting his gate. Under Green's account of his actions presented at trial, Armstrong's out-of-court statement (that he did not know Green) no longer contradicted Green's version of events.
For these reasons, we conclude that even if the challenged hearsay should not have been admitted at Green's trial, the admission of this testimony did not appreciably affect the jury's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|