AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 convicted of multiple charges related to driving while intoxicated with his daughter in the car. During a traffic stop initiated for erratic driving, a beer can was observed being thrown from the car's passenger window. The Defendant initially denied throwing the can and consuming alcohol but later admitted to drinking. Conflicting testimonies were presented regarding the amount of alcohol the Defendant had consumed and whether he threw the beer can out of the window (paras 9-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to inquire about his prior convictions if he testified, claimed prosecutorial misconduct for stating he lied to the arresting officer, and asserted that cumulative error warranted reversal (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant did not preserve the issue of the district court's discretion regarding prior convictions for appeal, and defended the prosecutor's comments as permissible based on the evidence (paras 5, 13-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by ruling that the State could inquire about the Defendant's prior convictions if he testified.
• Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by telling the jury the Defendant lied to the arresting officer.
• Whether cumulative error requires reversal of the Defendant's conviction (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant (para 16).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant's argument regarding the district court's discretion to allow questioning about prior convictions was unpreserved for appeal because the Defendant did not specifically object based on Rule 11-404(B) at trial (paras 5-7).
  The Court determined that the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor's comments were deemed permissible based on the evidence presented during the trial, including conflicting witness testimonies about the Defendant's alcohol consumption and actions during the traffic stop (paras 13-14).
  The Court did not address the Defendant's cumulative error argument, finding no error in the issues raised (para 15).