The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Deno (Decided July 2, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that defense questions must be relevant to the issue of intoxication in order to be admissible.
In Deno, a police dispatcher sent Trooper Scott Barstad to a parking lot in Rochester on a report of a suspected impaired driver with a bloody face sitting in a pickup truck. The trooper found and stopped Jerry Deno's truck after he saw it exceed the speed limit and drift over the centerline. After the stop, the trooper saw that Deno's face was bloody and bruised. The trooper also saw signs of Deno's intoxication: Deno smelled of a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage; his eyes were bloodshot; and he slurred his speech. The trooper administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which supported his suspicion that Deno was impaired. Deno refused to perform any other field sobriety tests, including a preliminary breath test.
Trooper Barstad took Deno to the detention center and read him the implied-consent advisory. The trooper asked Deno at least three times if he would submit to a breath test, but Deno refused. The state charged Deno with second-degree gross-misdemeanor test refusal, third-degree gross-misdemeanor driving while impaired, and open-bottle possession.
Deno's trial strategy was to argue that his visible facial wounds implied that he had suffered a head injury that caused him merely to appear to be impaired. The district court treated this as a valid defense theory but prohibited Deno from arguing "to th[e] jury that [the arresting trooper's] decision not to contact emergency medical care or seek out medical care somehow negates probable cause." During Deno's cross examination of Trooper Barstad, the district court sustained relevancy objections to the following questions: "[H]ow far would you say [the traffic stop] was from the closest hospital?" "Well, in any event, you did not take him to the hospital. Correct?" "Knowing now that [many of the circumstances that led you to believe Deno was impaired could have also been explained by his head injuries,] . . . if you had to do it again . . . ?"
The Defendant was convicted and on appeal argued that the district court denied him his constitutional right to present a defense to the test-refusal charge. Deno argued that by prohibiting him from asking questions that sought to undermine the existence of probable cause (by casting doubt on the trooper's decision not to take Deno for medical treatment), the district court abused its discretion.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Deno's conviction stating:
"A defendant must exercise his right to present a complete defense within the bounds of the rules of evidence. State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688, 698 (Minn. 2001). Deno's challenged questions were irrelevant under the rules. "Evidence is relevant when it logically or reasonably tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue, or tends to make such a fact more or less probable, or affords a basis for or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact." State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742, 749 (Minn. 1997)."
"Questioning the trooper about the proximity to the nearest hospital would not elicit any evidence relevant to whether probable cause existed. The location of a hospital has no bearing on whether a reasonable officer would suspect that impaired driving was caused by alcohol consumption. Deno's other two challenged questions—"[I]f you had to do it again" and "You did not take him to the hospital"—likewise would not draw any testimony about whether probable cause existed at the time of the arrest. See id. The district court appropriately sustained the state's relevancy objections."
Moral Of The Story: If you have had too much to drink, don't drive or get into a fight!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment