State v. Hinz
| Decision Date | 26 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1615,83-1615 |
| Citation | 121 Wis.2d 282,360 N.W.2d 56 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David A. HINZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Bill Ginsberg and Wiener & Mandell, Madison, for defendant-appellant.
Steven E. Tinker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Madison, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before GARTZKE, P.J., and BABLITCH and DYKMAN, JJ.
The defendant appeals from a judgment following a jury trial convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.1 or more contrary to sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats. 1 The issue is whether the trial court erred by excluding a blood alcohol chart and computations from the chart which were offered in evidence by the defendant. We conclude that it did, and reverse.
The chart is from a department of transportation pamphlet used to train breath examiner specialists. 2 It shows estimated concentrations of blood alcohol as determined by comparing the number of drinks consumed with the weight of the consumer. Accompanying the chart is a formula for determining the amount of alcohol "burned up" over time by the drinker.
The defendant attempted to introduce the blood alcohol chart at trial. The trial court determined that it was relevant evidence. It excluded the chart, however, concluding that in the absence of expert testimony to explain it, the probative value of the chart was outweighed by the danger of confusion to the jury. Sec. 904.03, Stats. 3
The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence is a matter vested in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis.2d 723, 727, 324 N.W.2d 426, 428 (1982). Whether relevant evidence should be excluded on the basis of its prejudicial potential under sec. 904.03, Stats., "goes to the trial court's discretion to weigh the probative value of the evidence against the possibility of prejudice or other factors which might impede the orderly and expeditious disposition of the issues at trial" (citations omitted). State v. Wollman, 86 Wis.2d 459, 464, 273 N.W.2d 225, 228 (1979).
The chart itself is simple to read, and contains explicit directions for its use. Its use requires no more than comparing an individual's weight with the number of drinks allegedly consumed, and applying a simple mathematical computation to determine the amount of alcohol "burned up" during the time elapsed since consumption of the first drink.
We reject the proposition that expert testimony is necessary to translate the significance of the chart, as applied to the individual defendant, to the jury. As the defendant contends, the blood alcohol chart is directly analogous to the average stopping distant chart also issued by the department of transportation. Both charts estimate physical conditions based on average circumstances. A particular stopping distance may vary from the chart's estimate because of the driver's reaction time, type and condition of tires, condition of the pavement, road grade, and other factors. Blood alcohol content may vary from the chart's estimate because of metabolic rate, the actual alcohol content of the drinks consumed, the amount of food in the stomach, and other factors. We perceive no material difference between the two charts in terms of their ease of use, or of the significance of their application to a variety of individual circumstances.
The stopping distance chart has been held admissible in Wisconsin by a line of cases beginning in 1959. Hoeft v. Friedel, 70 Wis.2d 1022, 1031, 235 N.W.2d 918, 922 (1975); Nieman v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 38 Wis.2d 62, 66 n. 3, 155 N.W.2d 809, 811 (1968); Keplin v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 24 Wis.2d 319, 332, 129 N.W.2d 321, 327 (1964); Mainz v. Lund, 18 Wis.2d 633, 641-42, 119 N.W.2d 334, 339 (1963); Steffes v. Farmers Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 7 Wis.2d 321, 331, 96 N.W.2d 501, 508 (1959). 4
Judicial notice of the stopping distance chart has also been taken frequently. Fischer v. Fischer, 31 Wis.2d 293, 307-08, 142 N.W.2d 857, 864 (1966), rev'd on other grounds, In Matter of Estate of Stromsted, 99 Wis.2d 136, 144, 299 N.W.2d 226, 230 (1980); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Burchard, 25 Wis.2d 288, 295, 130 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1964); Blahnik v. Dax, 22 Wis.2d 67, 70, 125 N.W.2d 364, 366 (1963). See also Schmiedeck v. Gerard, 42 Wis.2d 135, 141, 166 N.W.2d 136, 139 (1969). A court may take judicial notice only of matters which have "verifiable certainty." Fringer v. Venema, 26 Wis.2d 366, 372, 132 N.W.2d 565, 569 (1965).
The supreme court has noted the limitations of the evidentiary value of the stopping distance chart. In Hoeft v. Friedel, 70 Wis.2d 1022, 1031, 235 N.W.2d 918, 922 (1975) (footnote omitted), it stated:
It is permissible for a jury to consider this table in determining whether the operator of a motor vehicle was negligent as to speed or control. However, stopping distances depend upon a variety of factors, including the driver's reaction time. The table is to serve as a guide only and should not be considered conclusive on the issue of whether a driver was negligent as to speed.
These limitations are reflected in the applicable civil jury instruction, as follows:
A page of the Wisconsin Manual for Motorists setting out distances within which an automobile can be stopped when operated at certain speeds has been received in evidence and may be considered in arriving at a verdict. Those stopping distances, however, are based upon the assumption that the vehicle is a passenger car of average size and weight, that the surface is paved, dry and level, that the brakes and tires of the automobile are in average condition, and that the reaction time, that is, the time needed to apply brake pressure after the operator is aware of danger, averages about three-fourths of a second. Those stopping distances were received merely to give you aid and assistance and not to control you.
Wis JI--Civil 255. We perceive no reason why the correlative limitations of the blood alcohol chart should not be explained to the jury in the same manner.
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence under sec. 904.03, Stats.
The state also contends that the blood alcohol chart is inadmissible hearsay. The trial court did not fully address this issue. The decisions passing upon the admissibility of the stopping distance chart do not address hearsay objections to the chart. We reject the contention.
Section 908.03(8), Stats., excerpts from the hearsay rule public records and reports described as follows:
Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (a) the activities of the office or agency, or (b) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law, or (c) in civil cases and against the state in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. [Emphasis supplied.]
The blood alcohol chart is a compilation of a public agency, the department of transportation. Its findings are factual and were made in furtherance of its authority to train traffic officers. See sec. 110.065, Stats. In this case the trial court suggested that this exception applied, although ultimately excluding the blood alcohol chart on the basis of its potential for confusing the jury. Other decisions have suggested that stopping distance charts are admissible under this exception. See Robbins v. Whelan, 653 F.2d 47, 50 (1st Cir.) (analogous federal rule provision), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123, 102 S.Ct. 972, 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).
Section 908.03(24), Stats., also excepts from the hearsay rule evidence which has "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" comparable to the exceptions specifically delineated in the preceding 23 subsections of sec. 908.03. If the department of transportation's stopping distance chart has sufficient "verifiable certainty" for a court to judicially notice it, it follows that the similarly composed blood alcohol chart prepared by the same agency possesses sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible under sec. 908.03(24).
Under sec. 901.03(1), Stats., reversible error may not be predicated on a ruling which excludes evidence "unless a substantial right of the party is affected." We conclude that exclusion of the blood alcohol chart affected the defendant's substantial According to the defendant's offer of proof, he weighed 140 pounds, and consumed 8 beers over a 10-hour period of time. Applying these facts to the blood alcohol chart yields a blood alcohol concentration of .06 percent. The state's evidence showed a breathalyzer examination reading of .20 percent. The difference is significant. The case was a close one. The defendant produced several witnesses to corroborate his testimony, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the companion charge that the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol, contrary to sec. 346.63(1)(a), Stats. 5 The excluded evidence might well have swayed the jury's verdict on the instant charge. We conclude that the defendant's substantial right to have relevant evidence placed before the jury was affected by the court's ruling.
right to have the jury hear evidence material to his blood alcohol content.
The state contends that because the chart was not made a part of the record, review is precluded. Review is limited to the record before the court. Schimke v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 34 Wis.2d 317, 320, 149 N.W.2d 659, 661 (1967). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McManus
...admit or exclude evidence will only be overturned on appeal where the circuit court has abused its discretion. State v. Hinz, 121 Wis.2d 282, 285, 360 N.W.2d 56 (Ct.App.1984). "To find an abuse of discretion an appellate court must find either that discretion was not exercised or that there......
-
Lievrouw v. Roth
...that concerned alcohol and its effect on a person's driving ability was thus admissible under Rule 908.03(8), Stats. See State v. Hinz, 121 Wis.2d 282, 288, 360 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Ct.App.1984) (relying on Rule 908.03(8)(c), Stats., for the admission of a blood-alcohol chart from a Department of......
-
State v. Brewer
...The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence is a matter vested in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Hinz, 121 Wis.2d 282, 285, 360 N.W.2d 56, 59 (Ct.App.1984). Brewer contends that the danger of prejudice lies in the jury's inferring that he is a gang member and, thus, a bad c......
-
State v. Clifton
...against its prejudicial effect is the discretionary function of the trial court under Rule 904.03, Stats. State v. Hinz, 121 Wis.2d 282, 285, 360 N.W.2d 56, 59 (Ct.App.1984). Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has "a tendency to influence the outcome by improper means" or if it "appeals......