Attorney Mark L. Stevens's Legal Cases

DUI and DWI

State v. J.D.

Apr 28, 2010

OUTCOME: Not guilty verdict after DWI trial.

Driver stopped for routine traffic violations. The police alleged that he failed to stop for a long distance. The arresting cop claimed the driver had difficulty producing his license and registratio ... n and poor balance when he got out of his truck. The officer testified that the driver was "unsteady on his feet", and "slurred his speech". The officer testified that the driver "failed" the HGN test and "walk and turn test". The driver declined breath testing after his arrest. After trial the driver was found Not Guilty.

DUI and DWI

State v S.M.

Apr 07, 2010

OUTCOME: DWI Case Dismissed

In this case Attorney Stevens filed a motion to suppress evidence the police obtained during a warrantless seach and seizure that led to a DWI charge against the driver. After an evidentiary hearing o ... n the motion tio suppress, the motion was granted, which excluded all evidence in the case. All charges were then dismissed.

DUI and DWI

State v. J.S.

Mar 26, 2010

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict After DWI Trial

In this case the driver was stopped for "weaving within her lane" and crossing the lane markers during a rainstorm. After stopping the car, the driver performed three field sobriety tests under the aw ... ning of a gas station. The officer thought the driver failed all three tests and arrested for DWI. After cross examination at trial, the driver was found not guilty.

DUI and DWI

State v. S.L.

Jan 13, 2010

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict After DWI Trial

The driver was stopped for speeding on a motorcycle. He stopped the bike normally. The arresting officer testified that the motorcycle rider was "unsteady on his feet", and "slurred his speech". The ... officer testified that the driver "failed" the HGN test, the "heel-to-toe test", and the "one leg stand test". The driver refused breath testing after his arrest. After trial the driver was found Not Guilty.

DUI and DWI

State v. M.S.

Jan 08, 2010

OUTCOME: Not Guilty After DWI-2nd Offense Trial

In this case the driver was stopped for "erratic driving" and rolling through a stop sign late at night. After stopping the car, the driver performed three field sobriety tests: a horizontal gaze nyst ... agmus test, a walk and turn test, and a one leg stand test. The officer thought the driver failed all three tests and arrested her for DWI. At trial, the state presented the testimony of the arresting officer and the defense presented a witness who picked the driver up shortly after her arrest, who testified to the driver's sobriety. After trial, the jury found the driver not guilty.

DUI and DWI

State v. T. Pr.

Dec 30, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty after DWI Trial

The police recieved a call from dispatch regarding a vehicle that had left the scene of an accident at the parking lot of a restaurant. The suspected vehicle had a vanity plate and some distinguishing ... characteristics. An officer in the next town saw a vehicle that matched the description parked at an angle on Main Street. The officer activated his blue lights and approached the vehicle. He noticed that the driver's eyes were red and bloodshot, and that the driver appeared to be slurring her speech. When the driver got out of her car she "appeared unsteady on her feet" to the officer. He had her do field sobriety tests any way. After the driver "failed" all 3 field sobriety tests, the officer arrested her for DWI. She refused to blow into the breath testing hose at the police station. After a trial on the case, the driver was found Not Guilty of DWI.

DUI and DWI

State v. Scott M.

Dec 22, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty-Aggravated Boating While Intoxicated

The driver of a boat was stopped because an adult passenger in the boat was dangling his leg over the gunwale and dipping his foot into the water. An officer activated the blue light on his patrol boat ... and stopped the boat. Once stopped, the patrolman orchestrated the driver through the ritual “safety inspection”, demanding to see lifejackets, throw-able flotation devices; honking the horn of the boat and making sure that everyone on the boat had a life jacket. During this time the patrolman claimed to smell alcohol coming “from the operator”. Even though the boat driver performed everything asked of him during the “safety inspection”, the patrolman interrogated him about drinking any way. The driver said that he had had a couple of beers earlier. The officer reported that the driver’s eyes were “extremely bloodshot and glassy”, an observation that appears in most DWI and BWI reports. The officer then asked the driver to board the patrol boat for some “marine field sobriety testing”. Marine field sobriety tests are an unusual series of seated dexterity and counting exercises designed to trick the driver. These are the sea-faring version of the sidewalk gymnastics known as “standardized field sobriety testing” done during DWI cases at the roadside. The most basic difference is that there is no objective scoring system for these tests. This driver allegedly “failed” some of these tasks and was arrested for boating while intoxicated. Because there was a child on board he was charged with "aggravated boating while intoxicated" and faced up to a year in jail and a potential two year license loss. The defense was that the operator was not impaired. After trial, the biat operator was found not guilty of all charges..

DUI and DWI

State v. M.N.

Dec 09, 2009

OUTCOME: Boating While Intoxicated-Dismissed After Trial

The driver of a boat was stopped for driving without his bow light on. He had three passengers on the boat at the time. An officer activated the blue light on his patrol boat and stopped the boat. O ... nce stopped, the patrolman orchestrated the driver through a ritual “safety inspection”, demanding to see lifejackets, throw-able flotation devices; even asking the driver to honk the horn of the boat and make sure that everyone on the boat had a life jacket. During this time the patrolman saw some empty beer cans on board and claimed to smell alcohol coming “from the operator”. Even though the boat driver performed everything asked of him during the “safety inspection”, the patrolman interrogated him about drinking any way. The driver said that he had had a beer earlier. The officer reported that the driver’s eyes were “bloodshot and glassy”, a rote observation that appears in nearly every DWI or BWI report. The officer then asked the driver to board the patrol boat for some “marine field sobriety testing”. Marine field sobriety tests are an unusual battery of seated dexterity and counting exercises designed to trick the driver. These are the seafaring version of the sidewalk acrobatics known as “standardized field sobriety testing” done during DWI cases at the roadside. The most basic difference is that there is no objective scoring system for these tests. This driver allegedly “failed” some of these tasks and was arrested for boating while intoxicated. Prior to the trial date Attorney Stevens filed a motion to suppress evidence. The state objected. During the trial Attorney Stevens argued that all the evidence of intoxication should be suppressed (thrown out) because the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver was impaired by alcohol. The Trial Court agreed after hearing the parties’ respective arguments on the motion, and granted Attorney Stevens’ motion to suppress the evidence and motion to dismiss the charges against this driver. BWI-2nd offense dismissed.

Criminal defense

United States v Richard Villar

Nov 10, 2009

OUTCOME: Bank robbery conviction reversed and remanded

In United States v. Villar, the First Circuit decided that racial bias in jury deliberations can be inquired into as a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and an impartial ... jury despite the evidentiary rule (Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)) that generally prohibits jurors’ testimony from being used to impeach the jury’s verdict. In other words, a defendant’s constitutional rights trump rules of evidence. In reversing this federal bank robbery conviction, the Court of Appeals summarized its decision as follows: "While the issue is difficult and close, we believe that HN12the rule against juror impeachment cannot be applied so inflexibly as to bar juror testimony in those rare and grave cases where claims of racial or ethnic bias during jury deliberations implicate a defendant's right to due process and an impartial jury. In our view, the four protections relied on by the Tanner Court do not provide adequate safeguards in the context of racially and ethnically biased comments made during deliberations. While individual pre-trial voir dire of the jurors can help to disclose prejudice, it has shortcomings because some jurors may be reluctant to admit racial [**27] bias. 5 In addition, visual observations of the jury by counsel and the court during trial are unlikely to identify jurors harboring racial or ethnic bias. Likewise, non-jurors are more likely to report inappropriate conduct - such as alcohol or drug use -- among jurors than racial statements uttered during deliberations to which they are not privy."

DUI and DWI

State v J.B.

Aug 26, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict-DWI 2nd

This driver was charged with DWI after being stopped for "crossing the white fog line" and "taking a wide turn" as he made a left hand turn. Due to medical disabilities, the driver had difficulty with ... field sobriety testing. The field sobriety tests were video taped. The video showed the driver collapsing during his walk and turn test. Although the police assumed this was due to drunkenness, it was actually due to a documented medical condition. The driver was found not guilty after a trial.

Mark L. Stevens's Legal Cases (36)

State v. J.D.

State v S.M.

State v. J.S.

State v. S.L.

State v. M.S.

State v. T. Pr.

State v. Scott M.

State v. M.N.

United States v Richard Villar

State v J.B.