State
v. Hernandez
815
S.W.2d 67.
Dressler,
pp. 273-276
Facts: The defendant drove drunk
and got into an accident that killed someone.
He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. At trial, stickers and pins with pro-drinking
slogans were presented as evidence over his objection. He was convicted and he appealed on the basis
that the pins and stickers should not have been admitted into evidence.
Issue: Was the evidence of the
drinking slogans relevant to prove an element of the offense of involuntary
manslaughter?
Rule: The evidence is admissible
so long as it goes to show that the defendant was criminally negligent.
Analysis: The majority says that the
slogans would prove that the defendant had knowledge of the risks of driving
drunk. However, the court says that the
prosecution did not have the burden of proving that the defendant knew
the risk because they did not charge him with an offense requiring the mens
rea of recklessness. The court
instead finds that the evidence could only have been introduced as character
testimony, which is only allowed when the defendant himself makes an issue of
his reputation.
The
dissenting judge claims that at least some of this evidence should have been
allowed because it shows that the defendant knew what the effects of alcohol
were.
Conclusion: The majority rules that the
evidence should not have been allowed. The
court overturned his conviction.