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 convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and failing to maintain a lane. The case involved issues related to the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, the calibration of a breath alcohol testing (BAT) machine, access to an officer's internal affairs file, and claims of prosecutorial misconduct leading to a mistrial. The Defendant argued that the prosecutor's actions during the first trial violated his double jeopardy rights and that the BAT machine was improperly calibrated after being moved.
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Declared a mistrial after the prosecutor made a prejudicial statement during opening arguments. Denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy and speedy trial claims. Found no prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to bar retrial.
- District Court: Affirmed the Defendant's convictions for DWI and failing to maintain a lane. Rejected the Defendant's arguments regarding speedy trial violations, BAT machine calibration, and access to the officer's internal affairs file.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his speedy trial rights were violated, claiming he had raised the issue before the August 13, 2007, threshold set by State v. Garza. Contended that the BAT machine required recalibration after being moved and that the State failed to comply with regulations. Asserted that the officer's internal affairs file was relevant to his defense. Claimed that prosecutorial misconduct during the first trial violated his double jeopardy rights and barred retrial.
- State-Appellee: Maintained that the Defendant did not file a motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds until after the August 13, 2007, threshold. Argued that the BAT machine's calibration was within the discretion of the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) and complied with regulations. Asserted that the officer's internal affairs file was irrelevant and that the prosecutor's conduct did not meet the standard for barring retrial under State v. Breit.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
- Whether the BAT machine required recalibration after being moved.
- Whether the district court erred in denying access to the officer's internal affairs file.
- Whether the Defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Defendant's convictions for DWI and failing to maintain a lane.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Speedy Trial: The Court applied the guidelines from State v. Garza, which require a motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds to be initiated on or after August 13, 2007. The Defendant's motion was filed on August 21, 2007, and the delay in the case was less than one year, which is not presumptively prejudicial. Therefore, no further speedy trial analysis was necessary.
BAT Machine Calibration: The Court found no evidence that the BAT machine was moved from its original approved location or that the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) regulations were violated. The decision to recalibrate the machine after movement was within the SLD's discretion and not mandatory.
Internal Affairs File: The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying access to the officer's internal affairs file. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that the file contained material information relevant to his defense. The Defendant was given sufficient leeway to cross-examine the officer.
Double Jeopardy and Prosecutorial Misconduct: The Court applied the test from State v. Breit, which bars retrial only when prosecutorial misconduct is so prejudicial that it cannot be cured, is knowingly improper, and is intended to provoke a mistrial. The prosecutor's isolated comment during opening arguments did not meet this standard. The Court found no evidence of intent to provoke a mistrial or pervasive misconduct.