From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hugo v. Municipality of Anchorage

Court of Appeals of Alaska
Sep 22, 2021
No. A-13460 (Alaska Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2021)

Opinion

A-13460

09-22-2021

JEFFREY MELVIN HUGO, Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellee.

Steven J. Priddle, Law Office of Steven J. Priddle, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Heather A. Stenson, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, and Kathryn R. Vogel, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for the Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the District Court Trial Court No. 3AN-17-01709 CR, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, David R. Wallace, Judge.

Steven J. Priddle, Law Office of Steven J. Priddle, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Heather A. Stenson, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, and Kathryn R. Vogel, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

Jeffrey Melvin Hugo was convicted of operating under the influence after he struck the median while driving down Minnesota Drive in Anchorage.

Anchorage Municipal Code 09.28.020.

The Municipality's theory at trial was that Hugo's consumption of a combination of alcohol and marijuana had caused him to become impaired. The Municipality sought to introduce evidence of Hugo's failed horizontal gaze nystagmus test to prove that Hugo had consumed alcohol. The Municipality also sought to introduce evidence of a blood test showing THC in Hugo's system to prove that Hugo had recently consumed marijuana.

Hugo objected to this evidence. Hugo characterized his objection as challenging the scientific validity of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and the blood test under Daubert and Coon. But Hugo did not argue that the tests were scientifically invalid methods of proving the facts for which the Municipality sought to admit them. Instead, Hugo argued that the jury might misinterpret these tests and use them for an improper purpose. Specifically, Hugo argued that the jury might erroneously use his failed horizontal gaze nystagmus test as proof that he had consumed marijuana, rather than just alcohol, and that the jury might erroneously believe that the specific amount of THC in his system could be used to prove his level of impairment, rather than just the fact that he had recently consumed marijuana.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Sharpe, 435 P.3d 887, 899-900 (Alaska 2019).

The district court rejected Hugo's argument and allowed the Municipality to introduce evidence of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and the blood test. The court found that because Hugo's arguments did not go to the scientific validity of the tests, but rather to whether the jury might misunderstand the relevance of those tests, his arguments sounded under Alaska Evidence Rule 403, rather than Daubert and Coon. The court concluded that Hugo's concerns could adequately be addressed through cross-examination, and therefore did not require exclusion of the tests under Evidence Rule 403.

Hugo now appeals that ruling. He argues that the district court erred in concluding that his objection was not a challenge to the scientific validity of the tests in question. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it ruled that the tests were admissible under Evidence Rule 403.

After reviewing the record, we see no error in the district court's ruling. The district court's characterization of Hugo's arguments was correct - Hugo never disputed that the tests in question were scientifically valid for the purpose of proving the facts for which the Municipality introduced them. Instead, he argued that the jury might use those tests for an improper purpose. We agree with the district court that Hugo's objections therefore involved an Evidence Rule 403 rather than a Daubert/Coon analysis. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce the tests for the limited purpose for which they were proffered.

See Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931 (Alaska App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Coon, 974 P.2d at 394-98.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hugo v. Municipality of Anchorage

Court of Appeals of Alaska
Sep 22, 2021
No. A-13460 (Alaska Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Hugo v. Municipality of Anchorage

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY MELVIN HUGO, Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellee.

Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska

Date published: Sep 22, 2021

Citations

No. A-13460 (Alaska Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2021)

Citing Cases

Brink v. State

Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to introduce the HGN…