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 DWI in magistrate court and sought a trial de novo in district court, which affirmed the conviction. The appeal centers on several issues, including the suppression of a videotape not disclosed timely by the prosecution, the admissibility of certain testimonies, the refusal of a juror, the denial of a lesser-included offense instruction on careless driving, and the refusal of an instruction on excessive force as a defense to resisting an officer.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Grant County, J. C. Robinson, District Judge: Affirmed the DWI conviction entered by the magistrate court following a trial de novo.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the videotape should have been suppressed due to the State's failure to disclose it timely, claimed prejudice from the district court's consideration of the videotape, contended that one juror should have been excused for potential bias, argued that Officer Barde's testimony on Defendant's intoxication was inadmissible, claimed that careless driving should have been submitted as a lesser-included offense of DWI, and contended that an instruction on excessive force as a defense to resisting an officer should have been given.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Defended the district court's decisions on the issues raised by the Defendant, including the admissibility of the videotape, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction, and the procedural and substantive decisions made by the trial court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not suppressing the videotape despite the State's failure to disclose it timely.
• Whether the district court erred in its consideration of certain testimonies and in refusing to excuse a potentially biased juror.
• Whether the district court erred in not allowing a lesser-included offense instruction on careless driving.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing an instruction on excessive force as a defense to the charge of resisting an officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to affirm the DWI conviction entered by the magistrate court following a trial de novo.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding the suppression of the videotape unpersuasive, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision-making process regarding the discovery violation and the admissibility of the videotape.
  The Court rejected the Defendant's claims of prejudice due to the videotape's content and upheld the district court's discretion in handling the juror's potential bias and the admissibility of Officer Barde's testimony as a lay opinion based on observations.
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that careless driving is a lesser-included offense of DWI under the facts of this case and upheld the district court's decision not to instruct on careless driving.
  The Court affirmed the district court's decision on the issue of excessive force, finding that the use of a taser gun by the officer did not provide a basis for an excessive force defense to the charge of resisting an officer, as the Defendant had already evaded the officer before the use of the taser gun.