Posts tagged with "intoxication"

Despite Trial Court’s Abuse of Discretion, Defendant Failed to Prove Specific Harm Warranting Reversal

In a recent criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed judgment after a defendant, convicted of DUI, unsuccessfully claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court arbitrarily denied his motion for a minor continuance.

This case arose from an incident that occurred on November 22, 2003, in Stratford. The defendant crashed his vehicle into an unoccupied parked car, and responding officers noticed visible signs of intoxication. The defendant failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) of alcohol in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a(a)(1). The defendant wanted a jury trial, and during jury selection, the defendant used up all his peremptory challenges. When Juror T was selected as the alternate, defense counsel challenged him for cause. The reason given was because Juror T’s vehicle had been rear-ended by an intoxicated driver, he had been the passenger of an intoxicated driver, and he managed an alcoholic employee. The court would not excuse Juror T for cause, and defense counsel did not seek any additional peremptory challenges.

Due to a miscommunication, a regular juror did not appear at court on the scheduled trial date. However, because the alternate was present, the court stated that the trial would proceed that afternoon. Defense counsel immediately objected and requested a continuance to the next morning, when the regular juror would be available. The court denied the request “without giving any reason… other than that the alternate juror was selected in the same manner as the regular jurors were selected.” The defendant was convicted of OMVUI and thereafter appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion when it denied the motion, therefore depriving him of the right to an impartial jury.

Trial courts have wide discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a motion for a continuance. These decisions will not be overturned on appeal unless the appellant shows that the denial of this motion was arbitrary. A reviewing court will consider a number of non-exclusive factors:

[T]he timeliness of the request for continuance; the likely length of the delay; the age and complexity of the case; the granting of other continuances in the past; the impact of delay on the litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; the perceived legitimacy of the reasons proffered in support of the request; [and] the defendant’s personal responsibility for the timing of the request.

State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 801 (2003). Even if the Appellate Court finds that the trial court acted arbitrarily, it must also determine that the denial was harmful, a burden placed on the appellant. If the denial implicates the violation of a constitutional right, prejudice is presumed. In addition, with respect to alternate jurors, they must have “the same qualifications and be selected in the same manner as regular jurors.” General Statutes § 54-82h(a).

In this case, the Appellate Court considered the factors listed above and came to the conclusion that the trial court’s denial of the motion for a continuance was “unreasonable and arbitrary under the unique circumstances of the case.” However, though the defendant cited a deprivation of his Sixth Amendment protections, he did not cite any case law or provide any analysis in support of his claim. As such, prejudice was not presumed, and the defendant had to show he was harmed by Juror T sitting on the jury. The defendant failed to demonstrate specific harm, and the Appellate Court declined to presume that Juror T was not “an impartial juror under these circumstances.” Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence) or license suspension, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Defendant Argued Concussion Led to Failed Field Sobriety Tests

In a recent criminal law matter, the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court’s decision that the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was involved in an accident.

This case arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2004, in Westport, Connecticut. The defendant consumed at least two alcoholic beverages between 4pm and 5pm, and was involved in an accident with another vehicle at approximately 6:15pm. The other driver stated that she noticed the defendant’s truck “accelerate rapidly toward her,” and there were no skid marks on the road, indicating the defendant did not attempt to apply his brakes. When police officers arrived, they observed the defendant bleeding from the nose, swaying and having difficulty standing, and one officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s body and breath. The defendant became belligerent when the officers administered three field sobriety tests, all of which he failed. At the police station, the defendant refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test, and only partially filled out a refusal form.

The defendant requested medical attention and was brought to Norwalk Hospital. Doctors diagnosed him with bilateral nasal bone fractures, but not a concussion. The CT scan did not show any “cranial abnormalities,” and the defendant did not exhibit any of the common symptoms of a concussion. Furthermore, the doctors did not discharge the defendant with “instructions consistent with an individual suffering from a concussion.” The defendant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) of alcohol in violation of State law.

At trial, the defendant had two doctors testify that he suffered a concussion as a result of the accident, which explained why he failed the field sobriety tests. The trial court was not persuaded, stating that while the testimony “raised the specter that the defendant may have suffered a concussion, [it] did no more.” The court relied on additional evidence indicating intoxication and the nonexistence of a concussion, and the defendant was thereafter convicted. However, the Appellate Court viewed the testimony of the doctors differently: it stated that one of the doctors “remained firm in rendering his expert medical opinion that the defendant had suffered a concussion.” Therefore, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction, citing insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was intoxicated when the accident occurred. The State appealed this decision.

The trier of fact, be it a judge or jury, is “free either to accept or reject, in whole or in part,” testimony of the defendant’s witnesses, especially when subject to cross-examination by the State. However, there is no mandate that trial courts must accept un-contradicted expert testimony. Appellate courts will defer to trial court rulings “[a]s long as evidence existed from which the [trier of fact] reasonably could have found the facts and drawn the inferences leading to its guilty verdict.”

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that there was ample evidence to support a conviction of OMVUI. It noted the various findings of the trial court and stated that each was supported by the record. The Supreme Court further wrote that the trial court was “free to weigh the credibility and reliability of the two experts,” and its rejection of their testimony was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case remanded.

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence), an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.