State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
Batterman was originally charged with both operating while intoxicated and having a prohibited alcohol concentration (second offense) following his arrest for a suspected OWI and a subsequent blood test that confirmed a .124 BAC. (¶2-4). Pretrial, Batterman scored a major victory when he convinced the circuit court to exclude evidence about his performance on the HGN test, arguing that any results from that “test” were invalid because the officer did not correctly administer it. (¶5). The State, apparently unphased by this development, then asked the court to dismiss the OWI charge so it could proceed on the PAC charge only. (¶6). The court granted the motion, and dismissed that charge with prejudice. (Id.).
At this point, Batterman’s attorney asked the court to admit evidence of Batterman’s performance on the two remaining field sobriety tests–the walk-and-turn and the one-leg-stand–arguing that his performance on those tests was “exculpatory” evidence. (¶8). It was Batterman’s argument that poor performance on those tests was correlated with an unlawful BAC; hence, evidence that he did well on the tests undermined the State’s blood test result. (¶11). The circuit court denied Batterman’s request and he was convicted following a jury trial. (¶¶12-13).
On appeal, COA finds that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found the proffered evidence irrelevant given the nature of the charge, a PAC violation. (¶18). While this evidence is obviously relevant in an OWI trial, a PAC prosecution has only two elements–that the person operated a motor vehicle on a highway and that they had a prohibited alcohol concentration. (Id.). Even though Batterman argues that this evidence could undermine the allegedly scientific nature of the blood result, COA faults him for not establishing that a “correlation between a low number of clues on a field sobriety test and a BAC below the legal limit is self-evident or a matter of ‘common sense.'” (¶21).
Moreover, regardless of how artful Batterman’s appellate arguments are, COA reminds the reader that it is not exercising a de novo review; because the circuit court “applied the relevant legal standards to the facts of record and used a rational process to reach a reasonable conclusion” it is duty-bound to affirm. (¶23).
And, while Batterman also argues that exclusion of this evidence violated his constitutional right to present a defense, the argument fails because: (1) Batterman forfeited such a claim by not raising it in the circuit court and (2) defendants have a constitutional right to present “relevant evidence” and this evidence does not satisfy that criterion because the circuit court already determined it was irrelevant. (¶¶25-26).
