Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12840 No. 6674
08-15-2018
NIKOLA NAZAREVICH BASARGIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Olena Kalytiak Davis, Attorney at Law, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Brittany L. Dunlop, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3PA-16-1286 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, John W. Wolfe, Judge. Appearances: Olena Kalytiak Davis, Attorney at Law, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Brittany L. Dunlop, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Wollenberg, Judges. PER CURIAM.
Nikola Nazarevich Basargin appeals his conviction for driving under the influence, raising two claims of error on appeal.
AS 28.35.030(a)(1).
Basargin argues first that there was no reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. But Basargin never challenged the validity of the traffic stop in the proceedings below. This claim is therefore not preserved for appeal.
See Moreau v. State, 588 P.2d 275, 280 (Alaska 1978) (holding that claims involving the exclusionary rule cannot generally be raised for the first time on direct appeal).
Basargin argues next that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence that Basargin was seen drinking alcohol prior to getting into his car as well as evidence that Basargin had open containers of alcohol in his car. Basargin argues that this evidence was unfairly prejudicial because Basargin's portable breath test and DataMaster results did not show the presence of alcohol and because the State's impairment theory rested solely on the controlled substances found in Basargin's subsequent blood test. We conclude that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless given the significant evidence of drug impairment in this case.
See Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 631-32 (Alaska 1969). --------
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.