The City Of Kennewick v. Day

11 P.3d 304 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was stopped for driving under the influence after maneuvering his truck around a police barrier set up to facilitate an accident investigation. The officer who stopped D immediately suspected he was intoxicated. Day claimed he had not been drinking, but was unwilling to take a field sobriety test or a portable 'BAC DataMaster' test. Day was arrested and his truck was searched. Police found a small amount of marijuana and a marijuana pipe. D immediately claimed the items were not his, that he had never seen them before, and that he had just picked up his truck from a repair shop. The postarrest BAC reading was .04, so he was charged only with negligent driving in the first degree. D was also cited for possession of marijuana under 40 grams and possession of drug paraphernalia. D asserted the defense of 'unwitting possession,' D offered the testimony of Don Simmonson. Simmonson, the owner of an auto repair shop, testified that d's vehicle had been in his shop undergoing major modifications for approximately four months up until a 'couple' of days prior to D's arrest. He also testified that one of the employees who worked on D's vehicle was fired for suspected drug use outside of work, and Simmonson recounted a prior incident in which a customer complained about finding drug paraphernalia in a car after it was picked up from his shop. D asked Simmonson if he was aware of D's reputation in the community for sobriety, as to both drugs and alcohol. The court sustained the prosecutor's objection. The court excluded D's proffered character evidence stating that 'it's not an issue of character, it's an issue of conduct and past conduct is not necessarily admissible to show present conduct.' The court did allow two other witnesses to testify that D had a good reputation in the community for truthfulness. D was found guilty of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. D appealed and the superior court reversed in that it was error for the district court in precluding D from presenting testimony regarding his reputation for sobriety. The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, reinstating D's convictions. D appealed.