STATE v LAPP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-127 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1983 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . CLIVE LAPP, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f C u s t e r Honorable A. B. M a r t i n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Brown and Huss, Miles C i t y , Montana George Huss a r g u e d , M i l e s C i t y , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana James M. S c h e i e r a r g u e d , L e g a l I n t e r n , O f f i c e o f A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana K e i t h D. Haker, County A t t o r n e y , P l i l e s C i t y , Montana Submitted: Decided: November 2 4 , February 4 , 1982 1983 Mr. C h i e f J u s t l c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f the Court. D e f e n d a n t Lapp was c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d o f n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e by a C u s t e r C o u n t y j u r y . H e now a p p e a l s t h e j u d g - ment o f c o n v i c t i o n and t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . W affirm. e At a r o u n d 6:00 a.m. on S e p t e m b e r 1 6 , Lapp was i n v o l v e d i n a t w o - c a r 1981, d e f e n d a n t c o l l i s i o n i n C u s t e r County. L a p p ' s v e h i c l e was p r o c e e d i n g e a s t i n t h e west-bound I n t e r s t a t e 94, vehicle a d i v i d e d highway, driven by Merlin l a n e of when i t c o l l i d e d w i t h a Benjamin. Benjamin died as a r e s u l t of i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . Lapp was t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l by a m b u l a n c e b e f o r e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway p a t r o l m a n , t h e scene. vehicle Robert Bishop, arrived a t B i s h o p ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n showed t h a t t h e B e n j a m i n had been traveling very slowly at t h e moment of c o l l i s i o n , while the vehicle with l i c e n s e p l a t e s registered t o Lapp was t r a v e l i n g a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 80 m.p.h. B i s h o p l e f t t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e but was c a l l e d b a c k a short time Dale later. Cunningham, On t h e s e c o n d v i s i t , the other Cunningham had left returned Bishop's tioned told after the car occupant of after initial Bishop t a l k e d t h e Lapp v e h i c l e . t h e a c c i d e n t and departure. Bishop Cunningham b r i e f l y a b o u t t h e a c c i d e n t . the officer his name, stated that to he later ques- Cunningham had d r i v i n g and t o l d B i s h o p t h a t Lapp was t h e d r i v e r . not been Cunning- ham was t h e n t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l by a m b u l a n c e . B i s h o p f i r s t q u e s t i o n e d Lapp a t t h e h o s p i t a l a t 1 0 : 2 5 a.m. t h a t morning. room f o r minor Lapp his name, Lapp had b e e n a d m i t t e d t o t h e e m e r g e n c y i n j u r i e s and f o r o b s e r v a t i o n . date of birth, and whether Bishop asked he had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. r e s p o n d e d w i t h h i s name and d a t e o f b i r t h . Lapp He t h e n s t a t e d t h a t h e was d r i v i n g , t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t was " a l l h i s f a u l t , " and t h a t t h e y " c o u l d d o a n y t h i n g t h e y w a n t e d t o " w i t h him. Lapp was n o t g i v e n a M i r a n d a w a r n i n g p r i o r tioning. There questioned. after his At were no two time nurses prior present to, while during or t o quesLapp was immediately t a l k w i t h Lapp d i d B i s h o p p l a c e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r arrest. Lapp's blood-alcohol a l c o h o l c o n t e n t of accident. analysis established approximately Bishop f u r t h e r .225% a t a blood t h e t i m e of examined b o t h v e h i c l e s the and d i s - c o v e r e d a t o o t h imbedded i n L a p p ' s d a s h b o a r d n e a r t h e c e n t e r b u t on t h e p a s s e n g e r I t was side. l a t e r established that t h e t o o t h was C u n n i n g h a m ' s . Lapp p r e s e n t s f o u r i s s u e s o n a p p e a l : ( I ) Whether d e f e n d a n t was " i n c u s t o d y " when q u e s t i o n e d by P a t r o l m a n B i s h o p ; ( 2 ) Whether allowed t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n should have been t o t e s t i f y a s t o whether o t h e r occupant of d e f e n d a n t ' s i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by the c a r were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s having s t r u c k t h e s t e e r i n g wheel; ( 3 ) Whether factors to t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y consider in determining instructed the on the reliability of d e f e n d a n t ' s a d m i s s i o n ; and ( 4 ) Whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e v e r d i c t . Lapp first contends that he was "in custody" q u e s t i o n e d by P a t r o l m a n B i s h o p a t t h e h o s p i t a l . He when argues t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t o f q u e s t i o n i n g h e h a d become t h e f o c u s o f the investigation and that the questioning had therefore p a s s e d from t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t a g e t o t h e a c c u s a t o r y s t a g e as distinguished 478, 84 S . C t . i n E s c o b e d o v. 1 7 5 8 , 1 2 L.Ed.2d Illinois 977. ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U . S . Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t where s u c h a c c u s a t o r i a l a t t e n t i o n h a d f o c u s e d upon him, the q u e s t i o n i n g became c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e p a t r o l m a n was r e q u i r e d t o g i v e M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s p r i o r t o q u e s t i o n i n g . Miranda v. E.Ed.2d Arizona 694. ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. Where the 436, patrolman 86 S . C t . failed Lapp c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t warnings, f a i l i n g t o suppress h i s statement. to 1602, 16 give such Court erred in Lapp a l s o a r g u e s t h a t such as t o s i g n i f i - c a n t l y d e p r i v e him o f h i s f r e e d o m o f a c t i o n . W r e j e c t both e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of q u e s t i o n i n g were arguments. Lapp's r e l i a n c e on E s c o b e d o ' s investigatory and accusatory U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , stages distinction is i n Miranda, between misplaced. The defined "custodial i r r t e r r o g a t i o n " a s " q u e s t i o n i n g i n i t i a t e d by law e n f o r c e m e n t officers after a person has been taken into custody or o t h e r w i s e d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom o f a c t i o n i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way." a t 4 4 4 , 86 S . C t . 384 U . S . (Emphasis added.) 706. definition the Court In stated: Footnote "This at a t 1 6 1 2 , 1 6 L.Ed.2d 4 following that i s w h a t we m e a n t in E s c o b e d o when w e s p o k e o f a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n w h i c h h a d f o c u s e d on an accused." 1 6 L.Ed.2d M i r a n d a , 384 U.S. a t 706. a t 4 4 4 , 86 S . C t . a t 1612, The C o u r t h a s s i n c e f l a t l y a p p l i e d t h e r u l e t n a t " M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s a r e r e q u i r e d o n l y when t h e r e h a s been such a him 'in r e s t r i c t i o n on a p e r s o n ' s custody.'" 4 9 2 , 4 9 5 , 97 S . C t . added. ) Oregon v. freedom a s t o r e n d e r lblathiason 7 1 1 , 7 1 4 , 50 L.Ed.2d (1977), 7 1 4 , 719. 429 U.S. (Emphasis T h i s C o u r t h a s f o l l o w e d O r e g o n v. t h a t test. ing S t a t e v. 2 0 3 , 207, 6 2 2 P.2d Nont . , tion requiring Graves ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 38 S t . R e p . 650 P.2d t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t 1 3 8 1 , 39 S t . R e p . custodial because an 650 P.2d a t 1 3 8 4 , 39 S t . R e p . the focus I (1982), I n Dupre, interrogation situa- of a t 1663. Dupre 1660. is not warnings is individual Mont. 9 , 12; S t a t e v. "[a] Miranda X a t h i a s o n i n apply- created an simply investigation." The issue then becomes w h e t h e r Lapp was " d e p r i v e d o f h i s f r e e d o m o f a c t i o n i n a n y s i g n i f i c a n t way." W h o l d t h a t h e was n o t . e C o u r t s have considered mining whether iqiranda warnings. the given, h i s freedom of a c t i o n f o r purposes of The f a c t o r s i n c l u d e t h e p l a c e o f i n t e r r o - t i m e of interrogation, factors in deter- a s u s p e c t is i n c u s t o d y o r h a s been s i g n i - f i c a n t l y deprived of gation, a number o f interrogation, whether Miranda persons warnings present were t h e l e n g t h and mood o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n , gratuitously and w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s u s p e c t was a r r e s t e d f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n i n g . v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 27 Md.App. Cummings, the court 3 6 1 , 3 4 1 A.2d also noted the It distinguished Escobedo's Cummings 2 9 4 , 303-305. irrelevancy " i n v e s t i g a t i v e f o c u s " c r i t e r i a f o l l o w i n g Miranda. a t 306. during of In the 3 4 1 A. 2d subjective rule (whe- t h e r a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t h i n k s t h a t t h e s u s p e c t is t h e f o c u s of the investigation) from t h e o b j e c t i v e Miranda standard ( w h e t h e r o r n o t a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n b e i n g i n t e r r o g a t e d would f e e l h e was i n c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom). 1969), 407 F.2d Cir. that S e e a l s o , Lowe v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 3 9 1 , 1 3 9 7 ; W i l l i a m s v. 1 9 6 7 ) , 381 F.2d the majority 20, of 22. cases The c o u r t have held United S t a t e s ( 9 t h i n Cummings n o t e d that in-hospital q u e s t i o n i n g d o e s n o t amount t o c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . 341 a t 301. A.2d T h e r e t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t o o k p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l room a t about noon. The present during was not the brief placed questioning. suspect's under The wife and another arrest court before, found were interview. and n o n a c c u s a t o r y person Re during that after the questioning the or was noncustodial i n nature. In the instant emergency room Patrolman Bishop birth, the Lapp hospital asked Lapp was with only questioned two his nurses name, his in the present. date of w h e t h e r h e was d r i v i n g , w h a t s p e e d h e was t r a v e l i n g , and w h e t h e r was of case, test. h e would be w i l l i n g t o t a k e a b l o o d not placed under a r r e s t before, during or He immediately following t h e questioning. This Court interrogation. has previously State (1967), 1 5 0 Mont. ex rel. 1 2 8 , 432 P.2d considered v. Berger 93. in-hospital District There, Court we noted t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t " i n c u s t o d y " i n a n y l e g a l s e n s e o f t h e word. Nor was s h e o t h e r w i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d o f freedom. W e held that the District Court erred her in s u p p r e s s i n g s t a t e m e n t s when no c o e r c i o n w a s u s e d t o o v e r c o m e the suspect's changed. freedom See a l s o : 393, 1 5 4 N.W.2d 4 5 2 P.2d P.2d 350; 233. of choice. P e o p l e v. 800; S t a t e v. S t a t e v. Our position has not G i l b e r t ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 8 Plich.App. S a n d o v a l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 92 I d a h o 8 5 3 , Brunner (1973), 2 1 1 Kan. 596, 507 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d L a p p ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s upon f i n d i n g t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g was n o n c u s t o d i a l i n nature. Lapp next raises the argument that the attending p h y s i c i a n should have Seen allowed t o t e s t i f y a s t o whether injuries suffered by Cunningham w e r e having s t r u c k t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. consistent with his During cross-examination of t h e p h y s i c i a n by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e took p l a c e : "Q. A r e t h e r e anything--is t h e r e anyt h i n g a b o u t Mr. L a p p ' s i n j u r i e s f r o m y o u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f him, t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t with h i s being t h e d r i v e r ? "MR. I ' m going t o o b j e c t t o t h a t . HAKER: Sustained. "THE COURT: "BY MR. H U S S : Q. Bave you i n y o u r y e a r s o f t r a i n i n g and a s a p h y s i c i a n and s u r g e o n , had a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o v i e w v i c t i m s of a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t s ? A. Yes. "Q. A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many v i c t i m s o f a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t s would you s a y y o u ' v e s e e n ? A. Hundreds. Q. I n v i e w i n g t h o s e v i c t i m s , a r e you a b l e to--and t h e t y p e s of i n j u r i e s t h a t t h e y r e c e i v e d , a r e you a b l e t o a r r i v e a t a n y c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o how t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e i r i n j u r i e s i n an a u t o r n o b i l e a c c i d e n t ? A. You n o r m a l l y d o n ' t d o t h a t , b e c a u s e I t h i n k i t ' s c o n j e c t u r e on o u r p a r t , s o w e t a k e c a r e of what i s wrong a n d u s u a l l y f o c u s on t h a t . " D e i e n s e c o u n s e l t h e n made f o u r a t t e m p t s t o a s k t h e d o c t o r w h e t h e r t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by Cunningham w e r e c o n s i s t e n t with the injuries s t e e r i n g wheel. that can be sustained by striking a The S t a t e o b j e c t e d i n e a c h i n s t a n c e on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a d i n d i c a t e d i t would b e c o n j e c t u r e on his part to try to s u s t a i n e d each o b j e c t i o n . state On that. The District the t h i r d attempt, Court the court s u s t a i n e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was i n v a d i n g t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e j u r y . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e p h y s i c i a n was n o t a s k e d t o draw t h e u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Cunningham had s t r u c k t h e steerlng wheel with his chest. Rather, the doctor was properly asked a s an e x p e r t witness t o g i v e an opinion a s t o t h e c a u s e of injuries. W a g r e e t h a t under normal circume s t a n c e s t h e d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n a s t o t h e c a u s e o f Cunningham's i n j u r i e s would h a v e b e e n a d m i s s i b l e . Mont . , 6 2 3 P.2d 940, S t a t e v. Close ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 946, 38 St.Rep. 177, 184. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n invaded t h e province of t h e jury. Where p r e j u d i c e i s a l l e g e d i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , i t w i l l n o t be presumed b u r must be e s t a b l i s h e d from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t h a s been denied. P.2d a t 1 3 8 6 , 39 S t . R e p . S t a t e v. Dupre, 650 a t 1666. In t h e i n s t a n t case defense counsel l a i d an inadequate foundation injuries. normally for eliciting testimony on the cause of the The p h y s i c i a n s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t form conclusions as to t h e c a u s e of injuries in automobile a c c i d e n t s b e c a u s e i t would o n l y b e c o n j e c t u r e o n his part. The o b j e c t i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u s t a i n e d o n t h a t basis. Further, fairly minor injuries. detailed injuries Finally, t e s t i m o n y was e l i c i t e d on L a p p ' s and on Cunningham's t h e two a m b u l a n c e a t t e n d a n t s extensive testified t h a t Cunningham's i n j u r i e s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i m p a c t w i t h a s t e e r i n g wheel a n d t h a t Lapp h a d n o i n j u r i e s c o n s i s t e n t with such impact. T h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e j u r y o n t h e e x t e n t of b o t h i n d i v i d u a l s ' i n j u r i e s and t h e p o s s i b l e c a u s e s of t h o s e i n j u r i e s t o a l l o w a j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . v. B i d d l e ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 72 Wash.2d dant has failed harmless. 2 2 , 4 3 1 P.2d t o demonstrate prejudice. S t a t e v. Fitzpatrick (1980), Cf. 7 0 5 , 708. Any Weber Defen- error Mont. was I Defendant n e x t c h a l l e n g e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e a jury i n s t r u c t i o n d e t a i l i n g f a c t o r s the jury should consider i n determining mission. t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f d e f e n d a n t ' s ad- H e contends t h a t the following i n s t r u c t i o n should have been given: " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w e i g h t and e f f e c t o f p r i o r s t a t e m e n t s , i f a n y , by a w i t n e s s inconsistent with the witnesses [sic] t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l , you may c o n s i d e r t h e w i t n e s s e s [ s i c ] p h y s i c a l a n d m e n t a l cond i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e making o f s u c h s t a t e m e n t , h i s i n t o x i c a t i o n o r l a c k of i n t o x i c a t i o n , w h e t h e r s u c h s t a t e m e n t was g i v e n under o a t h , any b i a s , p r e j u d i c e , i n t e r e s t o r m o t i v e t h a t t h e w i t n e s s may h a v e had i n making s u c h s t a t e m e n t and whether t h e w i t n e s s a d m i t s o r d e n i e s t h e making of s u c h p r i o r s t a t e m e n t . " T h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t "where t h e j u r y i s a d e quately instructed no e r r o r party's proposed already covered." S t a t e v. S m i t h ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 9 3 , 1 0 0 , 5 4 1 P.2d 3 5 1 , 355. instruction I n such a s i t u a t i o n , t h e m e r i t s of instruction which for failure is to give a counsel has f u l l opportunity t o argue the defense. was occurs Here, adequately covered s u b s t a n c e of by the refused I n s t r u c t i o n No. 17, which d e f i n e d a d m i s s i o n s and t h e n s t a t e d : "You a r e t h e e x c l u s i v e j u d g e s a s t o whet h e r a n a d m i s s i o n was made by t h e d e f e n d a n t and i f t h e s t a t e m e n t i s t r u e i n whole o r i n p a r t . I f you s h o u l d f i n d t h a t such s t a t e m e n t is e n t i r e l y u n t r u e , you m u s t r e j e c t i t . I f you f i n d i t i s t r u e i n p a r t , you may c o n s i d e r t h a t p a r t which you f i n d t o be t r u e . "Evidence of an o r a l a d m i s s i o n of t h e def e n d a n t o u g h t t o be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n . " Defense counsel e l i c i t e d e x t e n s i v e testimony concerning Lapp's injuries, circumstances his surrounding disorientation, the admission. and all The of the jury was adequately instructed. Defendant evidence. finally He a r g u e s challenges the t h a t unrefuted the defense expert witness s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence presented established by i t was p h y s i - that c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r Lapp t o h a v e beer: i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t and for Cunningham t o h a v e Defendant's been expert witness, in the passenger's seat. a former p h y s i c s i n s t r u c t o r a t Miles C i t y Community C o l l e g e , testified that if t h e r e a r of the the impact, Lapp vehicle swung to right after the o c c u p a n t s of t h e c a r would h a v e b e e n t h r o w n t o w a r d t h e r i g h t of the vehicle. Lapp c o n c l u d e d t h a t Cunningham m u s t h a v e been i n t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t s i n c e h i s t o o t h was imbedded t h e dashboard t o t h e r i g h t of t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. in Defendant a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by t h e two o c c u p a n t s of the car are consistent t o support the defense contention t h a t Cunningham was t h e d r i v e r . This Court applies the standard set U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n J a c k s o n v . 443 U.S. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 99 S . C t . and a d o p t e d 646 P.2d standard i n S t a t e v. 533, is 538, 39 "whether, forth Virginia 2781, 2789, 6 1 L.Ed.2d Plouffe St.Rep. after (1982), 1064, viewing the the (1979), 560, 573, Mont. 1070. l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , by The evidence I Jackson in the any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e c r i m e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . " 1070. 6 4 6 P.2d a t 5 3 8 , 39 S t . R e p . at Applying t h a t s t a n d a r d , w e f i n d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o support the verdict. When f a c e d w i t h c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , t h i s Court w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e a j u r y ' s v e r d i c t where s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n is c o n t a i n e d i n the record even t h o u g h enough e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h e c o n t r a r y c o n c l u s i o n i s a l s o present i n the record. Mont . , 615 P.2d S t a t e v . Campbell ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 9 0 , 2 0 0 , 37 S t . K e p . 1337, 1348. The d e f e n d a n t i n C a m p b e l l was a l s o c h a r g e d w i t h n e g l i g e n t homic i d e a f t e r a d e a t h r e s u l t i n g from a n a c c i d e n t . Defendant's physics the vehicle expert testified that the driver of would h a v e b e e n thrown f r o m t h e c a r a s a r e s u l t o f t h e c o l lision. D e f e n d a n t was f o u n d i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y t h a t i n c l u d e d a s t a t e m e n t by one of the passengers that Campbell was the driver. We upheld Campbell's c o n v i c t i o n . Here, t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e showing t h a t t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e s on t h e v e h i c l e were i s s u e d t o Lapp. Defen- d a n t and Cunningham e a c h t o l d P a t r o l m a n B i s h o p t h a t Lapp was driving. Cunningham t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t remember e v e r having d r i v e n Lapp's v e h i c l e . Finally, Cunningham's t o o t h was imbedded i n t h e d a s h b o a r d on t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e o f t h e vehicle. Substantial evidence supports the conviction. Af f i r m e d . %e f J JiA p , wst ce t Chi u W e concur: / Justices fl

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.