State v. WolfState v. Wolf
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Toussaint
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Ricky Wayne Wolf challenges his conviction of two counts of driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of
FACTS
On October 21, 1996, Ricky Wayne Wolf was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI) in the city of St. Cloud, which lies within Stearns and Benton Counties. The stop occurred in Benton County, more than 1,500 feet from the Benton-Stearns County line. Charges were brought in Stearns County.
At the omnibus hearing in Stearns County, Wolf moved for a change of venue to Benton County. The district court denied Wolfs motion and held that pursuant to
The district court limited Wolfs expert testimony to causes of Intoxilyzer malfunctions for which there was evidence in the record. The district court prohibited the expert from introducing malfunction theories without evidence in the record raising an inference of a false Intoxilyzer reading. The expert was also not allowed to testify about the “Widmark” formula or any other types of “extrapolation.”
Wolf stipulated to the facts and waived his right to a jury trial. The district court convicted him and Wolf now appeals.
ISSUES
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of Wolfs expert witness?
2. Does
ANALYSIS
I.
Wolf first argues that the district court denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by limiting the testimony of his expert witness. “[T]he district court has broad discretion in deciding whether téstimony by a qualified expert should be received.” State v. Helterbridle, 301 N.W.2d 545, 547 (Minn.1980). We defer to the district court’s exercise of discretion and will not reverse absent clear error. State v. Koskela, 536 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Minn.1995). Generally, expert testimony is admissible if (1) it assists the trier of fact; (2) it has a reasonable basis; (3) it is relevant; and (4) its probative value outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. State v. Jensen, 482 N.W.2d 238, 239 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
A defendant in a criminal case has the right to present a defense in accordance with the rules of evidence.
See State v. Buchanan,
431 N.W.2d 542, 550 (Minn.1988) (defendant’s constitutional right to give testimony must be balanced against relevancy requirement). Relevant evidence is admissible.
After being notified that Wolfs expert witness, Thomas Burr, would likely testify about the reliability and operation of the Intoxilyzer and extrapolation using the “Wid-mark” formula, the district court applied the four-part test described above and decided to limit his testimony. In limiting Burr’s testimony to evidence in the record that sufficiently raises an inference of a false Intoxi-lyzer reading, the district court weeded out irrelevant testimony. Testimony of possible theories of malfunction for which no evidence exists in the record would not assist the trier of fact in resolving the factual issue of whether Wolfs blood-alcohol level was more than .10. Likewise, extrapolation testimony in this ease would have been of no assistance to the trier of fact. While retrograde extrapolation may be admissible, it is unreliable when an expert has insufficient information about variables. See Jensen, 482 N.W.2d at 239 (noting that the experts had information about the type of alcohol consumed, the time of last alcohol intake, and the type of food ingested). Wolf did not know how many drinks he consumed, making extrapolation using the Widmark formula inherently unreliable. Hence, the limitations placed on Burr’s testimony were not an abuse of discretion.
II.
Wolf also argues that the state failed to establish venue, one of the elements of a DWI offense. Wolf contends that under Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution and
Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution states:
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.
The general venue statute provides: “except as otherwise provided by
The trial of all charges of all criminal and ordinance violations * * * shall be conducted in the municipality where the alleged violation occurred if the court regularly holds session at that location or in another location within the same county as the court designates by rule.
If a municipality is located in more than one county court district, or in more than one county within a county court district, the county in which the city hall of the municipality is located determines the county or county court district in which the municipality shall be deemed located for the purposes of sections 487.01 to 487.38 provided, however, that the municipality by ordinance enacted may designate, for those purposes, some other county or district in which a part of the municipality is located.
DECISION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of Wolfs expert witness and properly determined that the case was properly venued in Stearns County.
Affirmed.
Notes
.