State v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 08 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11160,11160 |
| Citation | 97 Idaho 52,539 P.2d 604 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dennis C. GRIFFITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
John Hjellum, II, Boise, for defendant-appellant.
W. Anthony Park, Atty. Gen., Terry E. Coffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming a judgment of conviction rendered against appellant in the magistrate's division of the district court following a jury trial, for the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages in violation of I.C. § 49-1102. 1 We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Appellant Dennis C. Griffith was arrested in Boise during the early morning hours of December 18, 1970, for driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages. The first trial ended as a mistrial when the jury failed to reach a verdict. Upon retrial, the second jury found appellant guilty. The trial magistrate entered judgment of conviction, imposed a 30-day jail sentence, and fined appellant $300 plus court costs. Griffith appealed to the district court '. . . upon all questions of law and fact for a trial de nova (sic) to a jury upon the defendant's plea of not guilty to said charge.'
The district court denied appellant's request for a trial de novo and elected to decide the appeal upon the record. By memorandum decision and order dated July 7, 1972, the district court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the defendant and affirmed the judgment of the magistrate's division.
Appellant urges ten assignments of error. The relevant assignments 2 are summarized into four main issues:
(1) The criminal complaint was defective (2) The trial court erred in limiting defense counsel's opening statement at trial;
(3) The district court on review of the conviction erred in not viewing a portion of the evidence submitted at trial, and the district court erred in affirming the judgment as the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; and,
(4) A trial do novo should have been granted on appeal from the magistrate's division.
Appellant argues that the criminal complaint fails to state a criminal offense, and further, that the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to apprise appellant and his counsel of the factual circumstances for which he was charged. In relevant part, the instant complaint states:
'PERSONALLY APPEARED Before me this 18th day of December, 1970 Charles D. Coulter in the County of Ada, who, being first duly sworn, complains and says: that DENNIS C. GRIFFITH on or about the 18th day of December, 1970, at Boise in the County of Ada and State of Idaho, then and there being, did then and there commit the crime of DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL said crime being committed as follows, towit: That the said defendant, DENNIS C. GRIFFITH, on or about the 18th day of December, 1970, in Ada County, Idaho, then and there being, did then and there unlawfully, willingly, intentionally, and knowingly drive, manage operate and have in his control a motor vehicle, that is, a 1969 Chevrolet Malibu, bearing Idaho License No. 1/A33-827, on Fairview Avenue in Ada County, State of Idaho, while he the said defendant was then and there under the influence of intoxicating liquor.'
The complaint charges that appellant did unlawfully, etc., drive and control a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. This recitation clearly charges a public offense in violation of I.C. § 49-1102-'Persons under the influence of intoxicating beverages or of drugs.' 3 in plain and concise language. State v. Ashby. 4
The sufficiency of the instant complaint, which was filed on December 18, 1970, was to be tested by the requirements of I.C. § 19-3901, 5 which states:
'Complaint.-All proceedings and actions before the magistrates division of the district court for a public offense of which such court has jurisdiction, must be commenced by complaint under oath, setting forth the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of, and to answer the complaint . . ..'
The complaint must set out the offense charged with such factual particulars as time, place, and person (1) to enable the defendant to understand the character of the complained-of offense so as to prepare a defense, and (2) so that conviction will bar a second prosecution for the same offense. State v. Barr. 6 The complaint may be phrased generally in the words of the statute or ordinance allegedly violated if it meets the above stated factual requirements relating to the preparation of an adequate defense and provides res judicata effect. 7 The instant complaint was legally sufficient.
Appellant argues that the trial court unduly restricted defense counsel's opening statement, given immediately after the State's opening remarks. The trial court limited defense counsel's statement to '. . . precisely what you plan on calling in your direct examination . . ..' and directed defense counsel not to comment on the possible testimony of the arresting officer, Deputy Sheriff Kepner, who would supposedly testify during the prosecution's case-in-chief. We agree with the trial magistrate that defense counsel's remarks in regard to Deputy Kepner's impending testimony were, in part, directed towards impeaching that testimony. The trial court acted correctly within the perimeters of its discretion in sustaining the State's objection.
Opening statements serve to inform the jury of the issues of the case and briefly outline the evidence each litigant intends to introduce to support his allegations or defenses, as the case may be. 8 While counsel should be allowed latitude in making an opening statement, 9 the trial court may limit the scope of that statement in the exercise of its discretion. 10 Generally, opening remarks should be confined to a brief summary of evidence counsel expects to introduce on behalf of his client's case-in-chief. Counsel should not at that time attempt to impeach or otherwise argue the merits of evidence that the opposing side has or will present. 11
Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Appellant also argues that the district court erred when it '. . . did not review the strongest piece of evidence which the defendant had . . . (when it) did not view the video tape and because it did not, could not make an intelligent and accurate appraisal of the merits of the defendant's case.'
The district court elected to consider the instant appeal on the basis of the record, ruling that the only issue on appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence. The court did not observe the video tape taken of appellant several hours after his arrest; but based its decision on oral argument, the transcript of the proceedings below, and the State's stipulation that the video tape was favorable to appellant:
The district court's memorandum decision detailed the testimony of Deputy Kepner, and the results of the Mobat test (a test usually administered by the officer in the field to determine the percentage of alcohol in the blood), which the court concluded supported the jury verdict. In regard to the video tape, the district court held:
The district court concluded sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the verdict and affirmed the judgment.
While a viewing of the video tape by the district court might have been appropriate in disposing of the appeal, the district court's refusal was not reversible error. The function of an appellate court is to examine the record to determine if competent and substantial evidence exists to support the verdict. Pursuant to I.C. § 1-2213, the district court affirmed the judgment on the record. We agree that substantial and competent evidence was presented to sustain the verdict and judgment of conviction. The order of the district court finding substantial and competent evidence and, therefore, sustaining the judgment of the magistrate's division is not erroneous. 12
Appellant's final contention deals with the district court's denial of the motion for a de novo adjudication on appeal. Appellant argues that I.C. §§ 1-103 and 1-105, Rule 27 of the Rules of the Court for the Magistrate's Division of the District Court, 13 and portions of the Criminal Appellate Rules unconstitutionally deny his right to a jury trial. He argues that this Court cannot extinguish a 'right' to a jury trial by rules effective subsequent to the complained-of offense, for such change allegedly violates his right to due process of law. He maintains that this Court cannot make inapplicable by rule statutory provisions providing a trial de novo on appeal and that only the legislature can repeal those statutory provisions.
We reject this argument. I.C. § 1-103 pursuant to Section 2, Article V., of the Idaho Constitution, as amended, 14 transfers jurisdiction of cases cognizable in the former justice court to the magistrate's division. 15 I.C. § 1-105 provides that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunlap
...own behalf and not as an opportunity "to impeach or otherwise argue the merits of" the opposing party's evidence. State v. Griffith, 97 Idaho 52, 56, 539 P.2d 604, 608 (1975) (footnotes omitted). There is also "considerable latitude in closing argument," and both sides "are entitled to disc......
-
State v. Dunlap
...own behalf and not as an opportunity "to impeach or otherwise argue the merits of" the opposing party's evidence. State v. Griffith, 97 Idaho 52, 56, 539 P.2d 604, 608 (1975) (footnotes omitted). There is also "considerable latitude in closing argument," and both sides "are entitled to disc......
-
State v. Aragon
...is substantial competent evidence to support the jury's verdict. State v. Warden, 100 Idaho 21, 592 P.2d 836 (1979); State v. Griffith, 97 Idaho 52, 539 P.2d 604 (1975); State v. Cypher, 92 Idaho 159, 438 P.2d 904 (1968). Our function on appeal is to examine the supporting evidence, not to ......
-
State v. Alger
...P.2d 672 (1978); State v. Freeman, 574 P.2d 950 (Kan.1978); See State v. Chapple, 98 Idaho 475, 567 P.2d 20 (1977); State v. Griffith, 97 Idaho 52, 539 P.2d 604 (1975); State v. Bullis, 93 Idaho 749, 472 P.2d 315 (1970); State v. Oldham, 92 Idaho 124, 438 P.2d 275 As also noted above, four ......