Opinion ID: 1826076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidence of officers' intoxication.

Text: [39] We find no error in the trial court's rulings restricting the testimony of defendant's pathologist regarding her opinion on the behavioral effects of alcohol or in its refusal to instruct the jury on the elements of sec. 885.235, Stats. Defendant made no offer of proof with respect to the pathologist's opinion when the court ruled on the objection to her testimony. Consequently, we could not hold even an erroneous exclusion of evidence prejudicial. State v. Bailey, 54 Wis.2d 679, n. 1, 196 N.W.2d 664 (1972); State v. Hoffman, 58 Wis.2d 21, 24, 205 N.W.2d 386 (1973); Deja v. State, 43 Wis.2d 488, 492, 168 N.W. 2d 856 (1969). The court refused to instruct the jury on the statutory presumption of sec. 885.235, Stats. [21] [40] We do not reach the question whether this statutory presumption is applicable to show the intoxication of a victim as part of defendant's theory of self-defense. Without considering this question, we note that sec. 885.235(1) (c) requires corroborating physical evidence of intoxication to supplement the statutory presumption. Because we find no such corroborative evidence of actual intoxication in the record, we hold the trial court's ruling the statutory presumption would have confused the issues and misled the jury was entirely proper. By the Court. Judgment and orders reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. ROBERT W. HANSEN (dissenting). Two Milwaukee police officers are deadboth killed when they cornered a fleeing gunman who had earlier threatened to blow their heads off with the loaded revolver he leveled at them. Both law officers were slain with bullets from the pistol of one of the officers, which the defendant had wrested from the officer during the struggle which followed the pursuit and attempted apprehension of the gunman. Their killer, defendant James Ray Mendoza, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder (sec. 940.01, Stats.)on one count for the intentional killing of Police Officer Robert Riley and on the second count for the intentional killing of Police Officer Thomas Matulis. On appeal defendant claims the following: (1) That he was entitled to kill the two police officers in the exercise of the privilege of self-defense; (2) that the trial court erred in transferring the case for trial to another county to assure an impartial jury; and (3) that the trial court erred in not permitting defense counsel to impeach the results of a polygraph test to which defendant had stipulatedgiven by the polygraph examiner designated by defendant. Each claim of trial court error will be separately discussed.