Joehnk

People v. Joehnk

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 555·35 Cal. App. 4th 1488·42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 6·95 Daily Journal DAR 8004·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4697
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 1995D022743California7,769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Defendant and appellant Alexander Rutan Joehnk was convicted of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), and of driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher (§ 23152, subd. (b)). He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to use findings from horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) testing as a basis for his opinion that appellant was driving under the influence of alcohol. We conclude HGN testing admissible for that purpose and affirm.

Facts

On August 24, 1993, appellant was stopped by San Diego Police Officer Christopher Brush for driving with a defective brake light. On contacting appellant the officer smelled alcohol on his breath, noticed his eyes were watery and bloodshot, his pupils dilated and slow to react to light, his speech slurred, his gait unsteady and his clothing dirty.

The officer performed an HGN test on appellant. The test requires the subject follow a horizontally moving object, such as a pen, held close to the eyes. The officer noticed appellant’s eyes did not smoothly follow the object, there was a moderate onset of nystagmus, that is, a spasmodic motion of the eyeball at the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.