256 P.3d 890
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Everest was stopped at night for a defective illuminated license tag and lacked a valid driver's license.
- He exhibited signs of intoxication (bloodshot, watery eyes, odor of alcohol) and failed most field sobriety tests.
- Everest lied about his identity; a true name and date of birth were later obtained from an identification card.
- A DUI arrest followed; a search of Everest's car revealed the true ID; at the station, breath and blood tests were contested.
- Video of the stop and station events was admitted; the defense sought redaction, which was agreed to, but the jury only viewed up to time marker 1:48.
- Everest was convicted of DUI and felony obstruction of official duty; he appeals asserting evidentiary and sufficiency challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contemporaneous objection to Elnicki error | Everest | Everest | Not preserved; no reversal for Elnicki claim |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI | Everest | State | Sufficient evidence supports DUI |
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstruction of official duty | Everest | State | Conviction reversed; no substantial hindrance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 236 Kan. 353, 690 P.2d 1353 (1984) (obstruction requires substantial hindrance to official duties)
- State v. Latimer, 9 Kan. App. 2d 728, 687 P.2d 648 (1984) (false identification can support obstruction)
- State v. Payne, No. 102,337, 2010 WL 4668329 (2010) (unpublished; relates to substantial hindrance in obstruction)
- State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (continues contemporaneous objection rule for evidentiary issues)
- State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (evidentiary claims require preservation to be reviewed)
- State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 105 P.3d 1222 (2005) (improper to admit witness credibility opinion of another witness)
- State v. Merrills, 37 Kan. App. 2d 81, 149 P.3d 869 (2007) (illustrates preservation principle in appellate review)
- State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (trial objections must be specific to preserve review)
- State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842, 235 P.3d 424 (2010) (no exception to contemporaneous objection rule in presented record)
- State v. Wahweotten, 36 Kan. App. 2d 568, 143 P.3d 58 (2006) (evidence of intoxication via tests and observations)