The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Quiroz (Decided December 9, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you are going to present a SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It) defense, you have to disclose more than a name.
In Quiroz, the Defendant was charged with felony DWI and he sought to use an alternative perpetrator defense. The Defendant's attorney notified the state and the district court of his intent to use the defense and moved to introduce evidence to support his defense theory, requesting that the district court allow him to name the alleged alternative perpetrator. The only evidence appellant put forth to support his alternative-perpetrator defense was a name. At the hearing, Defendant's counsel explained that there was no additional information to disclose. The district court ruled that because the evidence was “just a name,” and there was not “any tendency to connect [the] name of some individual with the charged crime,” appellant could not name the alleged alternative perpetrator at trial.
A jury convicted the Defendant and on appeal he argued that the district court violated his right to present a complete defense by preventing him from naming the person driving the car.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, noting"
"A criminal defendant is guaranteed a constitutional right to present a meaningful defense. State v. Ferguson, 804 N.W.2d 586, 590-91 (Minn. 2011)."
***
"Included within the right to present a complete defense is the right to present evidence showing that an alternative perpetrator committed the crime with which the defendant is charged. Id. State v. Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d 82, 99 (Minn. 2011). 'Determining whether alternative perpetrator evidence was improperly excluded at trial involves a two-step analysis.' State v. Atkinson, 774 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Minn. 2009). 'First, we must determine whether the defendant laid a proper foundation for admission of such evidence by offering evidence that has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.' Id. If the defendant fails to lay a proper foundation, the alternative perpetrator defense will not be permitted; but if the defendant lays a proper foundation, he may then introduce evidence of a motive of the third person to commit the crime, threats by the third person, or other miscellaneous facts tending to prove the third party committed the crime. Id."
"When appellant notified the state and the district court of his intent to rely on the alternative-perpetrator defense at trial, the only evidence he offered to support his theory was that “[someone else] committed the crime with which [appellant] is charged.” He offered no further evidence to support his theory, and the district court therefore properly rejected his motion because he had given “no information,” and the name alone provided “no connection” between the crime and the alleged perpetrator. And the district court’s ruling did not bar appellant from putting forth a meaningful defense. At trial, appellant testified at length regarding the series of events that led to his arrest and his testimony suggested that someone else had been driving the car."
Moral Of The Story: The next time you have someone else drive your car, take their picture.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment