Court Opinion

ID: 9593874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:25:32.132954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:05.916640
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the result of the majority’s opinion in this case, and I must dissent. *1175I join in the dissent of Justice Brown, Retired, insofar as he would find any error to be harmless. I am not so readily persuaded that error exists, but if it does, I agree that it is harmless.
A consideration of the instructions read together discloses that the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of § 31-5-233, W.S.1977 (Nov. 1984 Repl.), because that section is referred to in § 6-2-106(b), W.S.1977 (Cum.Supp.1987), the criminal statute which Redland was convicted of violating. The court stated the third element of the offense described in § 31-5-233, W.S.1977 (Nov. 1984 Repl.), to be:
“3. The defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
In the accused instruction then, the court chose to define the phrase “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” one of the elements of the offense referred to in § 6-2-106(b), W.S.1977 (Cum.Supp.1987), the criminal statute. As Justice Brown, Retired, points out, these instructions repeatedly advised the jury that they must find that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to a degree which rendered him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. In context, while the instruction may not have been necessary, I cannot discern error in offering a definition of a phrase used in one of the elements of the offense which the jury must find to have been committed in order to convict of a violation of the statute under which Redland was charged.
I am willing to concede that the instruction was not necessary because the thrust of Morad v. Wyoming Highway Department, 66 Wyo. 12, 203 P.2d 954 (1949), is that the phrase “under the influence of intoxicating liquor” simply means “while intoxicated,” citing authorities which equate the phrase with intoxication or drunkenness. Since that is a concept about which lay witnesses may offer their opinion when testifying, State v. Cantrell, 64 Wyo. 132, 186 P.2d 539 (1947), the concept must be one with which lay people are sufficiently familiar that it requires no definition.
Were I a member of the jury which convicted Redland, however, I would take umbrage at the assumption by the majority that I was so impercipient, or uncomprehending, or foolish as to have been misled by this instruction. Defense counsel established the relationship between Instruction 13 and the elements of the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in his closing argument. The case is summed up by the testimony of the arresting officer, who in the course of discussing his advice of rights to Redland, said that Redland agreed to the appropriate test for intoxication. The officer went on to testify, quoting Redland as follows:
“He says I don’t see that there is any reason to do so, you know I’m drunk and I know I’m drunk.”
The jury knew that Redland was drunk, too, i.e., he was “under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to a degree which render[ed] him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle, * * Section 31-5-233, W.S.1977 (Nov. 1984 Repl). Under the circumstances, any possible error in the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.