State v. Hernandez

The focus in determining whether an issue has been adequately preserved in a particular case is whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.

Defendant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant was arrested for DUII and transported to the jail for field sobriety and Breathalyzer tests. The parties disputed what happened at the jail. The Officer claimed that the Defendant waived his right to an attorney and refused to take the breath test. The Defendant claimed that he was denied the right to speak to an attorney and moved to suppress the breath test refusal. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion and Defendant was found guilty of DUII. Defendant appealed and argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. On appeal, the Defendant argued that the State failed to prove that Defendant knowingly waived his right to speak to an attorney privately because the Officer was in the room when the Defendant was given a chance to call his attorney. The Court held that the Defendant failed to preserve the error because of the difference between the arguments presented in the motion to suppress and the arguments presented at the appeal and declined to address the issue. Affirmed.