Drunk Driver's Testimony "Opens Door" To Self-Incrimination
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017
Criminal Criminal DUI-DWI Criminal Misdemeanor
Summary: Blog post about the ability of courts to hear evidence of a person's refusal to answer questions after being stopped and arrested for DUI.
For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
In the case of State v. Brown, a driver was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content. The driver appealed and sought further review.
Shortly after 1 a.m. on the morning of April 9, 2008, a state police trooper on patrol was traveling northbound on Interstate 95 (I-95) when he received a report of a vehicle operating erratically and traveling at a slow rate of speed. The officer came upon the vehicle, which was being driven by the driver, and began following it. He observed that the driver was indeed "traveling extremely slow[ly]," at approximately thirty miles per hour, on a span of I-95 where the posted speed limit is fifty-five miles per hour. After observing the driver swerve over the white "fog line" and into the shoulder several times—at one point nearly striking the metal guardrail—the officer came to suspect that the driver was intoxicated. The officer attempted to initiate a traffic stop by activating the overhead lights, siren, and flashing headlights of his police cruiser. Although, in his experience, motorists typically respond to this display "almost instantaneously," the driver did not stop, and, indeed, appeared not to notice the police car at all. The officer then changed lanes and pulled up alongside the defendant's car "just to try to see if [he] could get [the driver’s] attention in some other fashion . . . ." Eventually, the driver pulled over.
After a police officer arrested the driver for DUI, he asked the driver a series of standard questions about his consumption of food and alcohol that evening and his general health. The driver answered most of the questions, including whether he had been drinking (which he admitted), but refused to answer where he had consumed the alcohol and when he had last eaten a meal. The driver argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his post-Miranda refusal to answer these questions. The high court disagreed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of his refusal to answer some of the questions, because in seeking to introduce cherry-picked evidence of the driver’s candor in answering the officer's questions, the driver’s counsel “opened the door” to allow the State to place this evidence in its proper context.
The judgment of the court was affirmed.
Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Source: State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469, 72 A.3d 48, 2013 Conn. LEXIS 260, 2013 WL 3871076 (Conn. 2013)
