Sanitizing During DUI Trials
Sanitizing is important. This can be especially true in a DUI trial. The issue usually arises when a person is facing accusations of both driving under the influence and driving while the privilege has been suspended for a prior DUI conviction. Try not to be that person by the way. BUT if you do end up being that person, any skilled lawyer knows that sanitizing the DUI license suspension charge is important if you want to keep the jury untainted by the evidence that your client has a prior DUI conviction. This is important because we want juries to decide cases on their facts. A jury knowing that a client has a prior DUI conviction creates in their minds an impression that the client is an incorrigible drunk driver (maybe they are). This, of course, creates the risk that they decide the issue of guilt based upon considerations that aren’t proper like prior bad acts or convictions. So what can you do to avoid that inherent prejudice that comes along with a prior DUI conviction? Sanitize!
I defended a client in a jury trial many years back against charges of driving under the influence and driving while her license was suspended for a prior driving under the influence conviction. I proposed the following stipulation and moved to sanitize the court’s instruction for count 3 (CVC 14601.2):
Stipulation: [Client] admits that on October 19, 2016, her license was suspended.
In support of the proposal, I cited Proffit out of the First District Court of Appeal (People v. Proffit, (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1255.) In Proffit, the defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence and a misdemeanor driving on a suspended license as a result of a prior DUI conviction (Id. at 1258.) The defendant sought bifurcated jury trials on the felony and misdemeanor counts to preclude the jury from hearing about prior DUI convictions that were elements of one of the misdemeanor counts (Id. at 1259.) The request for bifurcated trials was denied. (Id.)
The jury convicted defendant, who on appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of the request for bifurcated trials. (Id. at 1262.) The Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s arguments and found no support for the position that he was entitled to bifurcated trials, but did not “lightly dismiss the prejudice inherent in disclosing to the jury a defendant's prior convictions that are similar to charged offenses. (See People v. Wade, (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 460, 469 [factors affecting potential for prejudice include the prior conviction's closeness in time to, similarity with, and seriousness or inflammatory nature relative to the charged offenses].) The Proffitt court observed alternatives to a bifurcated trial that defendant could have sought, but failed to: “[h]e made no offer to stipulate to the prior convictions underlying his license suspension, so the court was never required to address in what manner, if any, the convictions could be sanitized.” (Proffitt at 1257-1258.) Citing Sapp, (See People v. Sapp, (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240), the Proffitt court acknowledged that in some cases, relevant authority “allow[ed] the trial court only two options when a prior conviction is a substantive element of a [properly joined] current charge: Either the prosecution proves each element of the offense to the jury, or the defendant stipulates to the conviction and the court ‘sanitizes’ the prior by telling the jury that the defendant has a prior felony conviction, without specifying the nature of the felony committed.” (Id. at 262, italics added.) Sapp involved a defendant charged with being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, but similar principles applied in my trial.
At the end of the day, the court just wants defendant’s to receive a fair shake. What did the judge end up doing in my trial? I can’t really remember. I think the DA accepted our stipulation. They probably did not have to, either. If I were a DA I wouldn’t. If the proposed stipulation were declined, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have the client simply plead out to the 14601.2 assuming the DA is in a position to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven’t looked at the Proffit case in quite a while so, as with everything I write, don’t rely on it as good legal advice. And lastly if you’ve been arrested or charged with driving under the influence, schedule a free consultation by contacting my office! Reach me directly at (916)761-8049 or Davis@dwhlo.com.
