Brown v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Brown v. State

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 1989

DocketCase No. 88-1043-AC (County Court Case No. 32924-87)

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130 (Brown v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. State, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack