Slovik

Slovik v. Yates

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 10, 200906-55867California4,697 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This case arises out of a billiard ball fight—not a billiard hall fight, although it certainly was that as well—but a fight involving billiard balls. On the evening of November 20, 1998, Slovik was drinking at a bar named Gusser’s Carousel. 1518 SLOVIK v. YATES It is clear that a bar fight occurred that night, and that Slovik was one of the main belligerents in that fight. After that, the details get kind of hazy. The various witnesses and participants—as the State points out, indisputably not picked from a Sunday school choir—offered conflicting testimony.

The prosecution relied largely on the eyewitness testimony of the bartender, Katherine Buckley-Stoffel, and bar patrons Mark Featherstone, Marilyn Woods, and Zachary Johnson. The defense relied on the eyewitness testimony of bar patron Bridgett Lewis. The trial error that is the subject of this appeal occurred during Featherstone’s testimony. We are going to relate the story as each of the witnesses recounted it.

Buckley-Stoffel testified that at approximately 1:00 a.m. she stopped serving Slovik alcohol because he was intoxi- cated and antagonistic. In response, Slovik…

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.