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

• Donald McPherson was convicted for aggravated DWI and resisting an officer. The district court ruled that if McPherson testified, the State could inquire whether he had previously performed field sobriety tests during a police stop. McPherson contended that this ruling violated his right to a fair trial and argued that the ruling was premature and constituted fundamental error because it was made in advance of his direct examination.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's ruling allowing the State to inquire about previous field sobriety tests if he testified violated his right to a fair trial. He contended that the ruling was premature and constituted fundamental error because it was made before his direct examination.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the defense had "opened the door" to questioning about whether the Defendant had taken or practiced field sobriety tests in the past, justifying the district court's ruling.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's ruling allowing the State to inquire about the Defendant's previous field sobriety tests, if he testified, violated his right to a fair trial.
• Whether the district court's ruling constituted fundamental error because it was made in advance of the Defendant's direct examination.
• Whether the State's comments during closing argument violated the Defendant's right to a fair trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court found the Defendant's arguments unpersuasive. It held that there was no requirement for the trial court to delay its ruling on the admissibility of questioning about past field sobriety tests until the Defendant had "opened the door" during his testimony. The Court also determined that the Defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by the State's comments during closing arguments, as the objections raised by the defense were not specific enough to preserve the issues for appeal. Furthermore, the Court found no fundamental error in the case, as the evidence presented against the Defendant was substantial, and the State's comments during closing did not affect the integrity of the judicial process or shock the Court's conscience. Lastly, the Court dismissed the Defendant's claim of cumulative error, affirming the convictions based on the reasons discussed in the opinion and the calendar notice.