Brown v. State
33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130
Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided March 28, 1989·No. Case No. 88-1043-AC (County Court Case No. 32924-87)·Published
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMED. The trial judge correctly instructed the jury regarding defendant’s refusal to submit to an approved breath test that:
When a person is suspected of committing the offense of driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent his normal faculties are impaired and refuses to take an approved chemical test, such a fact may be shown in evidence as a circumstances from which guilt may be inferred.
Now, while evidence of refusal to take a chemical test does not raise [131]*131a presumption of guilty, it is a circumstances which the jury may consider along with all the other evidence and circumstances in this case.
See Fla. Stat. 316.1932(l)(a) (1987), South Dakota v Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), Minor v Williams, 640 F.Supp. 360 (M.D. Tenn 1985).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. State, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).
33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
South Dakota v. Neville
459 U.S. 553 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Minor v. Williams
640 F. Supp. 360 (M.D. Tennessee, 1985)