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 driving while under the influence (DWI) and child abuse after being found driving under the influence with a child in the vehicle. Defense counsel conceded the overwhelming evidence of DWI but argued that driving under the influence with a child in the car does not inherently constitute reckless endangerment of a child.
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County, presided by Thomas J. Hynes: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated DWI and child abuse. The court denied the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after voir dire.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in denying a mistrial after voir dire, claiming the jury pool was tainted when the court instructed jurors to disregard defense counsel’s question about their impartiality in considering the charges separately. Additionally, the Defendant sought to amend the appeal to argue that hearsay testimony about the child’s age violated the confrontation clause.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the mistrial and limiting voir dire. The State also argued that the hearsay testimony was not prejudicial and that the jury could reasonably infer the child’s age from the officer’s observations.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after voir dire?
- Was the Defendant prejudiced by the district court’s limitation of voir dire questioning?
- Did the admission of hearsay testimony about the child’s age violate the Defendant’s confrontation clause rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Bustamante and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
Voir Dire and Mistrial: The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. Defense counsel’s voir dire question was deemed improper as it required jurors to consider specific facts of the case, which could bias the jury. The district court’s instruction to disregard the question and its subsequent voir dire process were sufficient to ensure impartiality. The Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or juror bias resulting from the voir dire process.
Prejudice and Jury Selection: The court found no evidence that the jury was tainted or that the Defendant was forced to use peremptory challenges on jurors who should have been excused for cause. The district court’s instructions to the jury to follow the law and avoid prejudice were presumed to have been followed.
Hearsay and Confrontation Clause: The court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to include the hearsay issue, finding it non-viable. The testimony about the child’s age was not shown to be testimonial, and even if it were, the officer’s observation of a child in the car provided sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the passenger’s age. Any error in admitting the hearsay testimony was deemed harmless.
Defense Strategy: The court rejected the argument that the district court’s ruling undermined the defense strategy. The decision to concede the DWI charge was a strategic choice made before voir dire, and the district court retained discretion to limit improper questioning.
The court concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion or prejudice warranting reversal of the conviction.