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 charged with aggravated DWI, excessively dark window tint, and possession of an open container. The State intended to introduce evidence of failed field sobriety tests to support the DWI charge. The magistrate court had previously indicated it would not admit field sobriety test evidence to prove impairment, prompting the State to file a motion in limine to address the admissibility of this evidence. The magistrate court denied the motion, leaving evidentiary objections to be raised at trial.
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court, September 8, 2008: Defendant was arraigned and charged with aggravated DWI, excessively dark window tint, and possession of an open container. The magistrate court later dismissed the charges at the State's request.
- District Court, February 24, 2009: The charges were refiled, but the district court dismissed them, agreeing with the Defendant's arguments that the State's actions constituted forum shopping and violated time limits for trial.
Parties' Submissions
- State (Appellant): Argued that the magistrate court's refusal to rule on the admissibility of field sobriety test evidence before trial effectively foreclosed its right to appeal. The State claimed it dismissed and refiled the charges in district court to preserve its ability to prosecute, not to circumvent time limits or engage in forum shopping. It contended that the time period for trial should restart upon refiling.
- Defendant (Appellee): Asserted that the State dismissed and refiled the charges to avoid time limits and engage in forum shopping. The Defendant argued that no suppression motion had been filed, and the State's actions were not justified under precedent. The Defendant maintained that the time limit for trial had expired.
Legal Issues
- Whether the State's dismissal and refiling of charges in district court constituted improper forum shopping or an attempt to circumvent time limits for trial.
- Whether the time period for commencing trial should restart upon refiling of charges in district court.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the charges.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry CJ. and Garcia J. concurring):
The Court found that the State's argument regarding the magistrate court foreclosing its right to appeal was speculative. The magistrate court had not ruled on the admissibility of evidence, and there was no indication that it would have suppressed the evidence or that the State would have been unable to appeal. The State failed to demonstrate that its dismissal and refiling of charges were not based on improper reasons, such as forum shopping or circumventing time limits. The Court emphasized that restarting the time period for trial upon refiling is an exception, not the norm, and the State did not meet its burden to justify this exception. The district court's dismissal of the charges was therefore upheld.