The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Dhimbil (Decided May 1. 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that sometimes it is okay to ask if another witness is lying.
In Dhimbil, appellant and two other individuals were traveling westbound on Highway 94 in a silver Toyota Camry registered to appellant. A witness, J.R., saw appellant's car "[d]riving out of control," making "very sporadic turns," driving at excessive speeds, and making "quick lane changes, even into almost the ditch." J.R. called 911 to report the incident. While on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, J.R. saw appellant's car "spin out, potentially even hit the median barrier, and spin and go into the ditch." J.R. saw appellant exit from the driver's side of the car, while the two passengers exited from the passenger's side. Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Jim Swanson responded to the emergency call and, upon arriving at the scene, saw appellant's car in the ditch and the car's three occupants standing on the side of the road.
Swanson noticed that appellant was leaning heavily on the two other individuals for support and smelled of alcohol. One of the passengers told the officer that appellant had been driving the car. Swanson asked the three men if they were wearing seat belts, and asked to see their shoulders to check for seat-belt marks. Appellant had marks on his upper left chest and shoulder, indicating that he was seated in the front driver's side of the car. Swanson then conducted field sobriety tests, which appellant failed, and administered a preliminary breath test, which revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.256. Based upon his training and experience, Swanson concluded that appellant was driving while impaired.
The appellant was convicted of DWI and on appeal, alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking the appellant if the state's witnesses were lying when they identified the appellant as the driver of the vehicle. The following exchange occurred at trial:
THE PROSECUTOR: Sir, you told [the officer] that there was a fourth person who was driving the car, correct?
THE DEFENDANT: I never did.
THE PROSECUTOR: So, sir, your testimony here today is that [the officer] lied to us yesterday when he was here in the courtroom?
THE DEFENDANT: He did.
THE PROSECUTOR: Sir, you're claiming before this jury that everything that your friend Hassan Osman said yesterday in front of this jury was a lie? Yes or no?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, he did. He lied.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the appellant's contention stating:
"Were they lying" questions generally "have no probative value and are improper and argumentative because they do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence." State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 518 (Minn. 1999). But Minnesota has not adopted a "blanket rule of law" prohibiting such questions because "[situations may arise where 'were they lying' questions may have a probative value in clarifying a particular line of testimony, in evaluating the credibility of a witness claiming that everyone but the witness lied or [where] the witness flatly denies the occurrence of events." Id. "[S]uch questions are permitted when the defendant [places] the issue of the credibility of the state's witnesses in central focus." State v. Morton, 701 N.W.2d 225, 233 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Pilot, 595 N.W.2d at 517); see also State v. Leutschaft, 759 N.W.2d 414, 422 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that the "central focus" test applies when the defense expressly accuses opposing witnesses of fabrications or falsehoods)."
"We determine that the prosecutor's questions were not improper because appellant placed witness credibility squarely in issue. Appellant testified during cross-examination that the state's witnesses were lying. The defense counsel asserted, in both his opening statement and closing argument, that testimony from the state's witnesses was 'coerced.'"
The Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed the District Court as the appellant chose to place the credibility of the state's witnesses directly in issue.
Moral Of The Story: If you are going to accuse a witness of lying, don't be shy about it!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment