Case Title: Meininger v. State

Citation: 704 So. 2d 1034

Docket Number: 1951735

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
704 So. 2d 1034 (1997)
Ex parte State of Alabama.
(In re Stephen Philip MEININGER
v.
STATE of Alabama).
1951735.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 23, 1997.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Jim R. Ippolito, Jr., asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
Michael D. Mastin, Albertville, for respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Stephen Philip Meininger was convicted of violating Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-191(a)(1), because he was driving when his blood alcohol level was 0.10% or more.[1] He was sentenced to 15 days in the county jail; his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on unsupervised probation for 24 months. The Court of Criminal Appeals, relying on Curren v. State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala.1993), reversed Meininger's conviction, writing and holding as follows:
Meininger v. State, 704 So. 2d 1030, 1030-32 (Ala.Crim.App.1996).
We granted the State's petition for certiorari review. The State argues that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals (concerning the admissibility of Trooper Dodgen's testimony about Meininger's physical condition at the scene) was based on an erroneous reading of Curren. We agree; therefore, we reverse.
Alabama's implied consent statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5-192, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(Emphasis added.) In Morgan v. City of Vestavia Hills, 628 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Ala. Crim.App.1993), the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote:
See, also, Hays v. City of Jacksonville, 518 So. 2d 892 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), wherein the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly observed:
The record in the present case indicates that the prosecutor elected to establish the statutory predicate, see § 32-5A-194(a), for the admission of the breathalizer tests performed on Meininger.[2] Trooper Dodgen testified, in pertinent part, as follows:
Trooper Dodgen's testimony clearly established the requirements of the statutory predicate. Of particular importance here is the fact that Trooper Dodgen's testimony established that Meininger had been lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol before being directed to submit to the Intoxilizer 5000 test and that there was probable cause to believe that Meininger had been driving while under the influence of alcohol. It was incumbent upon the prosecutor to lay the necessary predicate for the admission of the results of the breathalizer test. We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not err in denying Meininger's motion to exclude Trooper Dodgen's testimony concerning his observations of Meininger's physical condition at the time of the arrest. In so holding, we note that Meininger's reliance on, and the Court of Criminal Appeals' interpretation of, Curren was misplaced. Curren does not stand for the proposition that evidence of an arresting officer's observations of a defendant's physical condition at the scene is inadmissible in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1). In Curren, we characterized the issue as follows:
620 So. 2d  at 740. As previously stated in note 2, we held in Curren that the presumptions discussed in § 32-5A-194(b) do not apply in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), because intoxication is not an element of the offense of driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% or greater (i.e., whether the defendant had consumed "such an amount of alcohol as to affect his ability to operate a vehicle in a safe manner" is not a consideration in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), see Ex parte Buckner, 549 So. 2d 451 (Ala.1989) (defining "under the influence of alcohol" as used in § 32-5A-191(a)(2))). Meininger was prosecuted for violating § 32-5A-191(a)(1) and the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of that offense. Trooper Dodgen's testimony concerning Meininger's physical condition at the time of the arrest was relevant to establish probable cause to arrest. Evidence of probable cause to arrest was essential to establishing one of the material elements of the State's case-in-chiefthat the results of the breathalizer tests showed Meininger's blood alcohol content to be 0.10% or greater.[3]
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, COOK, and SEE, JJ., concur.
ALMON, J., dissents.
ALMON, Justice (dissenting).
I think the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly applied the law as stated by this Court in Curren v. State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala.1993). I dissented in Curren, and I would vote to overrule that case if the question whether to do so was presented. I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that, given the law as it existed at the time of Meininger's trial, the circuit court erred in allowing Trooper Dodgen to testify as to Meininger's physical condition.
Meininger squarely presented to the circuit court his position that the Curren rule, which prevents a defendant charged under § 32-5A-191(a)(1) from presenting evidence that he was not in an impaired condition, should prevent the State from presenting evidence that he was in an impaired condition. Furthermore, he offered to stipulate that Trooper Dodgen had probable cause to arrest him, so that the inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence (as the rule of Curren would have it) of his impaired condition *1040 would not be "admissible" to prove probable cause. The State's refusal to accept this stipulation is a telling indication that the State wanted to put on evidence of his physical condition to show not only that his blood alcohol content was above .10%, but also that he was driving in an impaired condition. This was unfairly prejudicial because, under Curren, Meininger was precluded from presenting any evidence that he was not in fact in an impaired condition.
After the qualification of the jury, the trial began with the following proceedings outside the presence of the jury:
The majority uses ellipses to omit what I consider significant portions of the record. The following question is quoted by the majority, but the objection and the ruling on it are not:
Again, shortly thereafter:
I would hold that this evidence was admissible as tending to prove that Meininger was in fact "under the influence" of alcohol. I would similarly hold that a defendant should be allowed to introduce evidence that his condition was not impaired. Under the Curren rule, however, I do not agree with the majority's rationale, which allows the State to introduce evidence of the defendant's impaired condition, supposedly to show that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the driver suspected of driving under the influence. I would hold that, so long as a defendant offers to stipulate to probable cause, as Meininger did, evidence of impaired condition is inadmissible because, according to the Curren rule, it is not relevant to the offense charged and unfairly prejudices the defendant by calling to the jury's attention extraneous matters.
In Curren v. State, 620 So. 2d 739 (Ala. 1993), the majority of this Court held that evidence that the defendant's condition was not impaired is not a defense to a charge of violating Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-191(a)(1), driving while "[t]here is 0.10 per cent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood." I pointed out in my dissent several reasons why I thought the majority decision was wrong. For example:
620 So. 2d  at 744 (Almon, J., dissenting).
Of course, I would prefer to see Curren overruled, so that both sides can offer evidence of impairment or the lack thereof as bearing on the true question of whether the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, as I explained in my dissent in Curren.
I note that the majority holds that § 32-5-192, Ala.Code 1975, the implied consent law, applies to prosecutions under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), even though the implied consent law applies only to situations where a person is suspected of "driving ... while under the influence of intoxicating liquor":
§ 32-5-192(a) (emphasis added). I agree with the majority that the clear legislative intent was for this statute to apply to prosecutions under § 32-5A-191(a)(1). However, unlike the Curren majority and the majority today, I also think that the clear legislative intent was for the presumptions of § 32-5A-194(b) (and, of course, the admissibility provisions of § 32-5A-194(a)) to apply to a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1).
I also note in regard to § 32-5-192(a) the provisions regarding "lawfully arrested" and "reasonable grounds." Certainly, if a defendant contests the traffic stop or the administration of a blood alcohol test, the question either of "lawful arrest" pursuant to "probable cause" or of "reasonable grounds" would make evidence of the defendant's condition admissible. Even if the defendant does not contest these issues, the evidence might ordinarily be part of the State's case-in-chief. However, Meininger offered to stipulate to probable cause, lawful arrest, and reasonable grounds to administer the test, so that the unfairly prejudicial evidence of his condition (again, unfairly prejudicial only because of Curren) would not be admissible. I think it was error to deny Meininger's motion in limine and to overrule his objections.
It is difficult to register my vote in this case, because, if Curren remains the law, then I think the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the State should not have been allowed to introduce the trooper's testimony that Meininger did not pass a field sobriety test. Because Curren precluded Meininger from meeting this prejudicial evidence with any evidence to rebut it, I dissent from the reversal of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, I continue to believe that Curren was wrongly decided. The strained reasoning of this case, deriving from what I consider to be incorrect reasoning in Curren, further highlights the problems arising from Curren's "per se" offense of driving while "there is 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in [the driver's] blood." If Curren were overruled, as I think it should be, then I would hold that a trial court should allow an arresting officer to testify as to a driver's condition.
I understand the need for enforcement of the laws against driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, and I agree that law enforcement officers should be allowed to testify as to the condition of a driver they have arrested under suspicion of violating these statutes. However, to allow an officer so to testify over pointed objections such as were made in this case allows the State, as Meininger's response to the State's petition says, to "have its cake and eat it too." To me, it is patently unfair to allow the State to introduce evidence that is irrelevant to the offense charged but will prejudice the defendant in the jury's eyes, and then to preclude the defendant from introducing any evidence that might answer or diminish the prejudicial effect of the State's evidence. I would overrule Curren v. State, but I would affirm the reversal by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Meininger's conviction, because Meininger was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial. I respectfully dissent.
[1]  Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-191(a)(1), as it read at the time of Meininger's offense, stated:

"(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while:
"(1) There is 0.10 per cent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood...."
This statute was later amended, effective August 9, 1995, to change the percentage to 0.08%.
[2]  This Court held in Curren, supra, that Ala.Code 1975, § 32-5A-194(b), was not applicable to a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), stating:

"As noted above, our own statute, § 32-5A-191(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, enacts a prohibition against driving, or being in actual physical control of a vehicle, with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% or greater. In order to find the defendant guilty of violating § 32-5A-191(a)(1), the jury is not required to find that the defendant was `under the influence' of alcohol; therefore, the jury need not `presume,' in accordance with § 32-5A-194, that he was under the influence from evidence admitted as to his blood alcohol content in order to convict. For that reason, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the rebuttable presumptions found in § 32-5A-194(b), Ala.Code 1975."
620 So. 2d  at 742. However, the reasoning used by this Court in that case does not apply in this case so as to prohibit the application of § 32-5A-194(a) to prosecutions under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), even though § 32-5A-194(a) refers to "acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol." Section 32-5A-194(a) sets out a procedure for establishing the admissibility of chemical analyses of a "person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance." Although this section on its face appears to be applicable only in prosecutions for "driving under the influence," it is illogical to conclude that the Legislature did not intend for this procedure to be available in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1), where, as we held in Curren, the sole inquiry is whether the defendant was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while there was 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood. Our holding in Curren that § 32-5A-194(b) was not applicable in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1) was based on our conclusion that the Legislature intended § 32-5A-191(a)(1) to be an "illegal per se law." It was, thus, illogical in Curren for this Court to hold that the presumptions discussed in § 32-5A-194(b) were applicable in a prosecution under § 32-5A-191(a)(1). Notwithstanding the Legislature's use of the phrase "driving ... while under the influence of alcohol" in § 32-5A-194(a), we nonetheless believe that our conclusion with respect to the applicability of § 32-5A-194(a) in prosecutions under § 32-5A-191(a)(1) is consistent with legislative intent.
[3]  We note that Meininger did not request that a limiting instruction be given to the jury, and we express no opinion as to whether a limiting instruction of some kind should be given upon request.