High Court affirms DUI conviction

The Commonwealth Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed Jetro U. Mettao’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.

In October 2004, a police officer noticed Mettao driving erratically at a high rate of speed along Middle Road. After stopping Mettao and ordering him out of his vehicle, the officer noticed that Mettao reacted slowly to his instructions, had bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, and smelled strongly of alcohol. Mettao also told the officer that he drank four beers shortly before driving. After his arrest, Mettao failed a breathalyzer test and two field sobriety tests. Thereafter, the trial court convicted Mettao of driving under the influence of alcohol.

On appeal, Mettao asked the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction on several grounds. First, Mettao claimed the trial court should have conducted a pre-trial hearing to determine whether his alcohol-related statements to the officer were voluntary. The Supreme Court rejected Mettao’s argument, stating it was “unnecessary for a trial judge in a non-jury trial to conduct a separate hearing on voluntariness.” The Supreme Court further stated that the trial court considered the voluntariness of Mettao’s alcohol-related statements during the trial itself, and therefore did not err in refusing to conduct a separate pre-trial hearing to address the issue.

Second, Mettao argued that the trial court erred in admitting his alcohol-related statements into evidence because the police officer never asked him if he understood that he had the right to remain silent. The Supreme Court, however, found that Mettao failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because he never objected to the admissibility of his alcohol-related statements at trial. The Supreme Court also stated that the trial court never admitted Mettao’s alcohol-related statements into evidence. Rather, the Supreme Court stated that the trial court “explicitly excluded Mettao’s statements (in reaching its decision).”

Third, Mettao argued that the trial court erred in considering the results of his breathalyzer and field sobriety tests based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This doctrine, in essence, precludes the admission of evidence that is procured through an involuntary or illegal confession. Mettao claimed that the police obtained his alcohol-related statements illegally because the police failed to ask him whether he understood if he had the right to remain silent. According to Mettao, this should have precluded the trial court’s admission of the results of his breathalyzer and field sobriety tests. The Supreme Court, however, found that “even without Mettao’s alcohol-related statements, the officer would have asked Mettao take the breathalzyer and field sobriety tests.” The Supreme Court noted that after the officer pulled Mettao over for driving erratically, he noticed that Mettao had blood shot eyes, a flushed face, and smelled of alcohol. The Supreme Court further noted that Mettao reacted slowly to the officer’s instructions. Thus, the Supreme Court stated that “we doubt that any competent police officer…would have failed to request a breathalzyer and field sobriety test based on Mettao’s driving and appearance.”

Finally, Mettao argued that the trial court erred in considering the results of his breathalyzer test because the prosecution didn’t provide him with information about the test before trial. The Supreme Court, however, found that Mettao did not preserve this issue for appellate review because he failed to object to the admissibility of his breathalyzer test at trial. Regardless, the Supreme Court concluded that there was “ample evidence to support Mettao’s conviction” even without the breathalzyer test.

The Supreme Court opinion was penned by Justice Alexandro C. Castro, who was joined by Justice John A. Manglona, and Guam Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr., who heard the appeal as a justice pro tem. [B][I](PR)[/I][/B]