State v. Watt
Decision Date | 18 July 2017 |
Docket Number | WD 79585 |
Citation | 531 S.W.3d 540 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Pharis Lynn WATT, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Jedd C. Schneider, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.
Before Division Two: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
Pharis Watt appeals, following a jury trial, his conviction for driving while intoxicated in violation of § 577.010,1 for which he was sentenced as a persistent offender under § 577.023 to a term of four years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for institutional treatment under § 559.115. Watt argues that the trial court erroneously excluded demonstrative evidence he proffered in the form of a voice exemplar in violation of his right to due process. Finding no error, we affirm.
On July 27, 2014, around 1:00 a.m., Lori Mitchell was driving on Scott Boulevard in Columbia, Missouri, when she encountered a vehicle swerving on the roadway and driving in the wrong direction. Mitchell called 911 to report the erratic driving. At 1:23 a.m., Columbia Police Officers Regan Gustafson and Ryan Holtz responded to the call.
Officers Gustafson and Holtz came upon a vehicle matching the description provided by Mitchell (a white sedan missing its rear bumper) stopped, but with the engine still running, partially on the shoulder and partially in the roadway a short distance from where Mitchell first reported seeing the car. The front passenger tire was directly against the curb and appeared damaged. The officers approached Watt, who was seated in the driver's seat of the vehicle, and asked him to turn the engine off.
Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Gustafson immediately smelled a very strong odor of intoxicants coming from the interior of the vehicle and noticed that Watt's eyes were bloodshot and watery. Before Officer Gustafson could say anything to Watt, he "handed [her] his Triple A card and ... ask[ed her] to call Triple A for him," an action he repeated "a couple of times." When Officer Gustafson asked Watt for his identification and insurance card, he continued trying to hand her his Triple A card. Officer Gustafson asked Watt where he was coming from, and he indicated "a friend's house," but, when asked to clarify where that friend's house was located, Watt provided "a series of numbers that changed a couple of different times, [and] was not able to give ... a street [name] at that point." When asked where he was going, Watt indicated that he was headed to a convenience store for cigarettes.
Officer Gustafson asked Watt if he had been drinking that evening. He initially indicated that he had not. Officer Gustafson noticed that Watt's speech was slurred and "a little bit halting." She then asked Watt to exit the vehicle, and, when he did, "he was unsteady on his feet and swaying." Upon being asked to perform field sobriety tests, Watt immediately responded by stating that he had injuries to his back, shoulder, hip, and knees. The officers moved Watt across the street to a vacant parking lot for safety reasons; as he walked across the street, he appeared unsteady on his feet, swaying side to side and staggering slightly. Officer Gustafson again asked Watt if he'd had anything to drink, and, at that time, he said he had consumed one beer approximately three hours earlier.
Once they reached the parking lot, Officer Gustafson had Watt perform two field sobriety tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus
(HGN) test and the one-leg stand test. Watt scored four out of a possible six clues of intoxication on the HGN test and three out of a possible four clues of intoxication on the one-leg stand test. In Officer Gustafson's experience, a strong odor of intoxicants and bloodshot, watery eyes were also indicators of intoxication and ones that would not result from consumption of a single beer. Based upon all of her observations of Watt, Officer Gustafson determined that he was too impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle, so she placed him under arrest.
Watt suggested to Officer Gustafson that he might be having trouble with his blood sugar, despite statements that he had taken all of his medication appropriately earlier that day. Consequently, Officer Gustafson called for medics. While awaiting the arrival of the medics, Officer Gustafson observed Watt to be unsteady on his feet and swaying slightly. Watt asked if he could sit down, and Officer Gustafson helped him do so. Despite suggestions to the contrary, Watt tried to lie down on his back, but complained of pain from his arms being handcuffed behind him, so Officer Gustafson attempted to help him roll onto his side, but he rolled himself face-first into the grass, causing Officer Gustafson to again assist him in rolling into a comfortable position, where he remained until the medics arrived. When the medics arrived, they tested Watt's blood sugar level and determined it to be within the normal range.
After being medically cleared to be taken into custody, Watt was transported to the Columbia Police Department for booking. During the drive, Watt repeatedly asked the officers why they believed he was driving while intoxicated, which had been discussed with him both at the scene and multiple times in the car. Watt reiterated that he had consumed only one beer, but he kept changing the time at which he supposedly had it from three hours prior to his arrest all the way up to the morning before his arrest. Throughout the drive, Watt's speech was slurred and halting; Officer Gustafson indicated that it "took him a little while to get certain sentences out."
When they arrived at the station, Officer Gustafson opened the car door and asked Watt to step out, but he advised her that he could not do so on his own. Officer Gustafson attempted to assist Watt by first moving his feet outside the car and then eventually lifting up on his arms. But Watt kept lifting his feet in the air, making it difficult to lift him from the car; he had to be asked to put his feet down to bear his own weight. Once inside the station, Watt again asked why the officers believed he was intoxicated. When asked to remove his belt, Watt declared that he was "incognito," which he explained meant he was not wearing any underwear.
After the jury was called back in, Watt's counsel requested a sidebar at which he stated:
Your Honor, at this time we're going to ask that the Court allow—we're going to ask the Court to allow Mr. Watt to make a statement for demonstrative evidence purposes only and have him read a sentence that was taken directly from the tape that the jury watched previously. And I think the State is going to have an objection to that.
Watt's counsel made no further effort to present the court with the proposed voice exemplar. The State reiterated its prior objection, and the trial court again sustained it. Watt presented no evidence, and following deliberation, the jury found him guilty of driving while intoxicated. The trial court later sentenced Watt, as a persistent offender, to a term of four years with a recommendation for institutional treatment under § 559.115. Watt appeals.
"Trial courts retain broad discretion over issues of relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and we will not interfere with those decisions unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion." State v. Gorman,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sinks
...the charge, the evidence presented, and the role the excluded evidence would have played in the defense's theory." State v. Watt, 531 S.W.3d 540, 550 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).B. Analysis "Although there is ‘broad latitude under the [U.S.] Constitution to establish r......
-
State v. Sinks
...message necessarily referenced the fifteen-year-old beating or that the June 3 text could only be understood in that context. See Watt, 531 S.W.3d at 550 quotation omitted). Moreover, Sinks fails to demonstrate how his evidentiary claim impacted his defense of justification as argued at tri......