State v. Brightman
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brightman was charged with driving while intoxicated and failing to signal on December 17, 2009.
- Approximately 2:35 a.m., Brightman failed to signal a left turn; officer noted strong odor of intoxicants and bloodshot/glassy eyes.
- Brightman admitted drinking prior to driving; he provided to three standardized field sobriety tests and failed the one-leg test and all phases of HGN, and partially passed walk-and-turn.
- Preliminary breath test indicated alcohol; Brightman’s breath test showed BAC 0.119%.
- At trial (July 13, 2011), a jury convicted Brightman of DWI; he was sentenced August 15, 2011 to 30 days with suspended execution and two years of probation; costs totaled $1,149.90.
- Brightman appeals on multiple points; the appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest and breath-test admissibility | Brightman asserts lack of probable cause and preclusion from prior administrative findings invalidating breath evidence | State contends probable cause supported arrest and prior findings do not bind criminal court | Denied; probable cause supported arrest; breath results admissible |
| Instruction MAI-CR 3d 331.02 adequacy | Brightman argues instruction is improper due to vague terms not defined by law | State argues instruction tracked MAI-CR 331.02 and proper per Schroeder | Denied; instruction proper; no error in giving MAI-CR 331.02 as written |
| Proffered Instruction A defining intoxicated condition | Brightman claims his proposed definition should have been given | State argues no need to define terms; current instruction suffices | Denied; trial court did not err in refusing to give Defense Instruction A |
| Closing arguments prejudicial error | Brightman contends State’s closing misdefined intoxicated condition and influenced the jury | State asserts arguments were within latitude and did not misstate law | Granted; improper and prejudicial closing arguments occurred; reversal required |
| Open item costs and discovery-related statements | Brightman asserts trial error regarding costs handling and discovery violations | State none or no need for remedy on discovery during trial | Denied; issues not preserved or not plain error that affected trial outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Keeth, 203 S.W.3d 718 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (evidence of intoxication supports probable cause to arrest)
- State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2007) (standard of review for probable-cause rulings; defer to trial court credibility)
- Schroeder, 330 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. banc 2011) (intoxicated condition understood by jurors; avoid defining terms to clarify)