Court Opinion

ID: 9675062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:40:59.968955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:15.495003
License: Public Domain

HAYDEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority determined defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court not allowing his attorney to make an argument about the alcohol having metabolized from his system by the time of his arrest.
There was sufficient evidence in the record for defendant’s attorney to comment on this to the jury. This is defendant’s attorney’s responsibility, and he should not have been prevented by the trial court from doing so. This was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. This constitutes error.
Unlike the majority, I determine this error was prejudicial to defendant. The jury’s verdict could very likely have been different. The jurors could very likely have determined defendant was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest. I would reverse the trial court and remand for a new trial.