|
High and Drunk
December 15, 2016
There is no way
to tell if Kelsey was high on marijuana, but surveillance video at
the Dam Site Inn seems to show him smoking with Brian Hildabridle
outside the bar just before he leaves for home. On the stand, Brian confirms what
the video shows:
| |
Roth: |
|
Thank you. Does it look like
you and the Defendant are smoking? |
| |
Hildabridle |
|
We probably
were, yes. |
| |
Roth: |
|
What were you
smoking? |
| |
Hildabridle |
|
Marijuana. |
| |
Roth: |
|
What was the Defendant
smoking? |
| |
Hildabridle |
|
Probably marijuana with me. (V5-87) |
John says it was a cigarette.
Assistant Prosecutor Roth also wants to prove that Kelsey
had been drinking heavily, so he questions two waitresses and a
bartender from the Alley Bar & Grill, the first stop Kelsey and his
friends made that night. Together, they are on the stand for 40
minutes. One of the waitresses is pretty sure Kelsey was there, but
can't say how much he drank. There are no surveillance cameras, but
there are bar tabs. One of them is for "John," but none of them can
connect Kelsey to that tab. Nothing conclusive obtained there. So on to
the evening's next stop, the Dam Site Inn. After Roth questions
bartender Amber Peek at length, defense attorney Morley
cross-examines:
| |
Morley: |
|
Do you know whether or not --
Were any of these people intoxicated that evening? |
| |
Peek: |
|
They had been drinking, yes. |
| |
Morley: |
|
All right. But my question --
You're a bartender, right? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Yes. |
| |
Morley: |
|
Have you been TIPS trained? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Yes. |
| |
Morley: |
|
And TIPS training is, what? |
| |
Peek: |
|
It's being trained on how to
see how drunk people are. |
| |
Morley: |
|
Okay. In case you have to cut
anybody off? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Yes, sir. |
| |
Morley: |
|
Did you have to cut anybody
off that evening? |
| |
Peek: |
|
No, sir. |
| |
Morley: |
|
Was anybody intoxicated of the
people we've been talking about here? |
| |
Peek: |
|
They were intoxicated to the
point of three to four beers, not nothing that I had to cut
them off. I didn't have to cut them off. |
| |
Morley: |
|
And that specifically includes
Mr. Kelsey? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Yep. |
| |
Morley: |
|
And, in fact, you didn't know
Mr. Kelsey. You can't -- you weren't able to give the police
his name or anything, right? |
| |
Peek: |
|
No. I just know him as a
familiar face. |
| |
Morley: |
|
And so it's your testimony
that he came in sometime between 10 or 11 p.m. and left
sometime between 1 or 2 a.m., three or four hours either
way, and he had three or four beers, right? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Mm-hmm. (V4-59) |
Later, in Roth's redirect:
| |
Roth: |
|
Mr. Morley asked you about the
point at which you cut off serving people. What is that
point? |
| |
Peek: |
|
If they appear intoxicated. I
mean, you're just trained. You can tell. |
| |
Roth: |
|
There are people that are
served that shouldn't be drinking, though -- excuse me,
shouldn't be driving, though, correct? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Correct. |
| |
Roth: |
|
It's a different point of
cutoff? |
| |
Peek: |
|
Yes. (V4-61) |
At the Dam Site Inn, there is video
surveillance. Roth questions MSP detective Scott Singleton.
They are viewing stills from the video:
| |
Roth: |
|
So you testified earlier that
there is hours of video. Are you able to count the number of
beers that the Defendant ordered or drank throughout the
night? |
| |
Singleton: |
|
No. It's difficult to tell. (V5-17) |
So he tries another tack:
| |
Roth: |
|
What do we see in 102? |
| |
Singleton: |
|
It's Mr. Kelsey again coming
from the bathroom area. |
| |
Roth: |
|
What time did he go to the
bathroom the third time at the Dam Site Inn? |
| |
Singleton: |
|
01:38 hours or 1:38 a.m. |
| |
Roth: |
|
So that's three trips to the
men's room in under two hours? |
| |
Singleton: |
|
That's correct. (V5-20) |
A short time later, still questioning
Singleton:
| |
Roth: |
|
Is frequent urination an
indicator of intoxication? |
| |
Morley: |
|
Objection, Your Honor. This
witness doesn't -- he's not an expert. If frequent urination
is -- well, I won't say it. I object. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Your Honor, I think it's -- he
said he's trained in doing that. It's a lay ability as a lay
opinion. |
| |
The Court: |
|
I'll sustain the objection. (V5-51) |
|