 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Trevor Chief Bear11/9/2004
, that he had seen Dave start the vehicle with the screwdriver the first time the defendant got into the vehicle in front of his residence. When the defendant asked Dave and Bill where they got the vehicle, they just laughed. When leaving the liquor store, the defendant started the vehicle with the screwdriver and then placed the screwdriver in his pocket.
According to the defendant, the three of them drove around for awhile and then he dropped Bill off "at a girl's house." The defendant and Dave then continued to drive around. The defendant saw a police cruiser and tried to avoid it by turning onto another street. He came across another cruiser, at which point Dave indicated that he wanted out of the vehicle. The defendant slowed down to allow Dave to exit the vehicle and then continued driving. The defendant stated that he drove until the vehicle's "tire popped or something," at which point he "got out and ran."
The defendant testified that he did not recognize Allan's house or garage from the photographs he was shown. He also testified that he did not have anything to do with stealing the vehicle from Allan's garage and did not dismantle the steering column. In addition, the defendant stated that when he was in the vehicle, "the brick wasn't there and the glass wasn't on the seat."
The defendant did not mention Dave or Bill at any time prior to trial. Martindale testified that when he asked the defendant at the hospital on the night of his arrest whether the defendant had been with others, the defendant did not mention anyone. The defendant had no explanation as to why he did not mention Dave and Bill to the police prior to trial. The defendant did testify that he had been drinking "a lot" that night.
The case was submitted to the jury at 1:35 p.m. At 4:21 p.m., the court reconvened with all parties and the jury present because the court had received a written request from the jury stating: "We would like transcripts of [the defendant's] testimony because there are discrepancies that we would like to clarify." The judge explained to all present that allowing juries to rehear only portions of testimony is generally discouraged but that the court has some discretion. The judge stated his role was to discover the exact nature of the request, to determine if the requested testimony could be isolated, and then to decide if the probative value of rereading the selected testimony would outweigh any possible prejudice. The jury foreperson stated that the jury wanted to hear the portion [of testimony] describing the events that occurred at the liquor store. And then a little bit later on in [the defendant's] testimony we thought we heard, and we would like this clarified, whether or not he saw the person using the screwdriver to start the car at the house and I believe that statement came after the liquor store portion.
The jury was led out of the room, and, following the transcription of the defendant's testimony, the judge stated that he had had the court reporter transcribe the testimony the judge believed covered the jurors' inquiry and that no testimony had been located regarding how the vehicle was started in front of the defendant's residence. Counsel for both sides had the opportunity to make any objections before the selected testimony was read back to the jury. Both defense counsel and the State indicated that they thought the testimony selected for rereading was fair and would not be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. Defense counsel's only stated concern was that the court somehow indicate to the jurors that "we didn't locate anything in the transcript about talking about the ignition or the screwdriver while parked in front of the house . . . . Because I think
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|