Miles v. Cox

Utah Supreme Court

Miles v. Cox

597 P.2d 1344, 1979 Utah LEXIS 893

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1979

DocketNo. 15990

StatusPublished

This text of 597 P.2d 1344 (Miles v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miles v. Cox, 597 P.2d 1344, 1979 Utah LEXIS 893 (Utah 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court revoking plaintiff’s driving privileges for his refusal to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law, § 41-6-44.10, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1977. The order is affirmed.

The trial court found the police officer had grounds to arrest plaintiff; plaintiff was properly requested to take a chemical test pursuant to § 41-6-44.10; plaintiff refused to submit to the test; and there was an explicit verbal refusal, after plaintiff was properly warned. [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court concluded plaintiff’s license was subject to revocation for his refusal to submit to a chemical test as provided in § 41-6-44.10(b).

On appeal, plaintiff contends his acts constituted a mere constructive refusal, which are insufficient to constitute a refusal under the act. Such a contention is contrary to the evidence adduced upon which the trial court based its finding. The sole witness at the hearing was the arresting officer; plaintiff did not appear. A survey of the record reveals substantial, competent, uncontradicted evidence to support the finding of the trial court, viz., plaintiff explicitly refused the chemical test. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s appeal is without merit.

CROCKETT, C. J., and HALL, WILKINS and STEWART, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court revoking plaintiff’s driving privileges for his refusal to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law, § 41-6-44.10, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1977. The order is affirmed.

The trial court found the police officer had grounds to arrest plaintiff; plaintiff was properly requested to take a chemical test pursuant to § 41-6-44.10; plaintiff refused to submit to the test; and there was an explicit verbal refusal, after plaintiff was properly warned. [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court concluded plaintiff’s license was subject to revocation for his refusal to submit to a chemical test as provided in § 41-6-44.10(b).

On appeal, plaintiff contends his acts constituted a mere constructive refusal, which are insufficient to constitute a refusal under the act. Such a contention is contrary to the evidence adduced upon which the trial court based its finding. The sole witness at the hearing was the arresting officer; plaintiff did not appear. A survey of the record reveals substantial, competent, uncontradicted evidence to support the finding of the trial court, viz., plaintiff explicitly refused the chemical test. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s appeal is without merit.

CROCKETT, C. J., and HALL, WILKINS and STEWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 P.2d 1344, 1979 Utah LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-cox-utah-1979.