State v. Waalen
| Decision Date | 11 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2133-CR,84-2133-CR |
| Citation | 371 N.W.2d 401,125 Wis.2d 272 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David A. WAALEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Review Granted.
Steven D. Phillips, Asst. State Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
John A. Lang, Asst. Dist. Atty., Polk County, Balsam Lake, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before CANE, P.J., and DEAN and LaROCQUE, JJ.
David Waalen appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to sec. 346.63(1), Stats. He argues that the jury should have been instructed that his ability to operate the vehicle must have been "materially" or "substantially" impaired. Because the trial court's instruction correctly stated the law, we affirm.
Waalen argues that the trial court's departure from the pattern jury instruction, Wis JI--Criminal 2663 (1982), prejudiced him. The pattern instruction states:
"Under the influence" of an intoxicant means that a driver's ability to operate a vehicle is materially impaired because of his consumption of an alcoholic beverage.
Not every person who has consumed alcoholic beverages is "under the influence" as that term is used here. What must be established is that the person has consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to cause him to be substantially less able to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle and control a motor vehicle.
It is not required that impaired ability to operate be demonstrated by particular acts of unsafe driving. What is required is that the person's ability to safely control his vehicle be materially, that is substantially, impaired. [ .]
This instruction uses the Wisconsin Criminal Code definition of "under the influence." See sec. 939.22(42), Stats. The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee's comment to this instruction states that the phrase "under the influence" is not defined in the Motor Vehicle Code, which prohibits operating under the influence. The committee concluded that the same definition should apply to all offenses involving the phrase "under the influence."
The trial court instructed the jury as follows:
The phrase "under the influence of an intoxicant" covers not only all the well-known and easily recognized conditions and degrees of intoxication but any abnormal mental or physical conditions which is [sic ] the result of indulging in any degree in intoxicating liquors, including beer, which tends to deprive one of that clearness of intellect and self-control which one would otherwise possess.
Not every person who has consumed alcoholic beverages falls within the ban of the statute. If that consumption of alcoholic beverages does not cause the person to be influenced in the ordinary and well-understood meaning of the term, the person is not under the influence of an intoxicant within the meaning of the statute.
This instruction parallels the pattern instruction before its revision in 1982. The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee's comment to this earlier version concluded that "substantial" and "material" impairment was not required in order to violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code.
A trial court has wide discretion in instructing the jury, including both the choice of language and the emphasis used in a jury instruction. State v. Turner, 114 Wis.2d 544, 551, 339 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Ct.App.1983). The instructions, however, must fully and fairly state the law that applies to the case and assist the jury in analyzing the evidence. Id.
The trial court fully and fairly stated the law in instructing the jury. In order to prove a violation of driving while under the influence, it is not necessary to show that consumption of the intoxicant appreciably interfered with the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Crampton
...187 N.W.2d 823, 826 (1971). Thus, there was no error in the substantive content of the re-instructions. See State v. Waalen, 125 Wis.2d 272, 274, 371 N.W.2d 401, 402 (Ct. App. 1985), aff'd, 130 Wis.2d 18, 386 N.W.2d 47 (1986). Nevertheless, the dissent argues that the trial court's importat......
-
State v. Camacho
...challenges the substantive jury instructions. 5 A trial court has wide discretion in instructing the jury. State v. Waalen, 125 Wis.2d 272, 274, 371 N.W.2d 401, 402 (Ct.App.1985). The instructions chosen by the trial court must accurately and fairly state the law. Id. Camacho argues prejudi......
-
State v. Oyler
...134, 138 (Ct. App. 1983). The instructions, of course, must fully and fairly state the applicable law. State v. Waalen, 125 Wis.2d 272, 274, 371 N.W.2d 401, 402 (Ct. App. 1985), aff'd, 130 Wis.2d 18, 386 N.W.2d 47 (1987). Before we will find an abuse of discretion, however, it must appear t......
-
State v. Potosnyak
...A trial court has wide discretion in instructing the jury, both as to choice of language and emphasis. State v. Waalen, 125 Wis.2d 272, 274, 371 N.W.2d 401, 402 (Ct. App. 1985), aff'd 130 Wis.2d 18, 386 N.W.2d 47 (1986). The instructions must fully and fairly state the law that applies to t......