A person who holds a CDL license at the time of committing a traffic violation may not participate in a diversion program or have judgment deferred on that conviction.
Double-jeopardy protections did not entitle co-defendants to dismissal of charges after State’s witness violated motion in limine; court refused to adopt more liberal State-law standard for such claims.
Defendant was not entitled to relief from judgment based on “newly discovered evidence”; he did not have creditable evidence on hand, but merely wanted to use so-called “evidence” of subsequent news stories as excuse for further discovery in hopes of obtaining exonerating evidence.
BMV was not entitled to relief from judgment letting OWI defendants reinstate drivers’ licenses without proof of SR22 insurance; regardless of merits of the order, BMV failed to make threshold showing of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek bifurcation of SVF firearm possession charge from resisting law enforcement (RLE) charges; trial court would not have been obligated to grant bifurcation because evidence of prior conviction was relevant to RLE charge and could also have been used to strategic advantage in defending SVF charge.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing-argument, showing slide highlighting defendant’s failure to produce evidence, was not fundamental error; trial court interrupted the slide and appropriately admonished the jury sua sponte, and defense did not move for mistrial.