This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a police officer for a non-operational license plate light and erratic driving. The officer detected the odor of alcohol, and the Defendant admitted to drinking earlier but claimed to have slept before driving. Field sobriety tests were conducted, with mixed results. The Defendant was arrested and administered two breath-alcohol tests, which showed BAC levels of .09 and .08 approximately an hour after driving. An internal calibration check of the breathalyzer machine during testing produced an anomalous reading of .000 (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Sierra County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the breathalyzer results should have been excluded due to the machine's anomalous internal calibration check, (2) a mistrial should have been granted due to inadmissible testimony about the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving, and (4) the trial court erred in denying a request for a special verdict form (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the breathalyzer machine was properly calibrated and functioning, the HGN reference was harmless and cured by a jury instruction, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under both statutory theories of DWI (paras 9-12, 15-16, 19-29).
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of the breathalyzer test results proper despite the anomalous internal calibration check?
- Did the trial court err in denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial due to inadmissible testimony about the HGN test?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction under the per se DWI statute, given the lack of specific relation-back evidence for the BAC at the time of driving?
- Did the trial court err in declining the Defendant's request for a special verdict form?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 31).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ (Pickard and Fry JJ. concurring):
Admissibility of Breathalyzer Results: The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the breathalyzer results. The State provided sufficient evidence that the machine was properly calibrated and functioning, and the anomalous internal calibration reading did not affect the reliability of the test. Any discrepancies went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility (paras 8-12).
Motion for Mistrial: The court held that the trial judge's prompt curative instruction to disregard the HGN testimony was sufficient to mitigate any prejudice. The fleeting reference to the HGN test was deemed harmless error, given the other substantial evidence of intoxication (paras 13-16).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under both statutory theories of DWI. The jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving was at or above the legal limit, based on the breathalyzer results, expert testimony, and corroborating behavioral evidence (paras 17-29).
Special Verdict Form: The court found no reversible error in the trial court's refusal to provide a special verdict form, as the evidence supported the conviction under either statutory theory (para 30).