Robinson v. Prins

Arizona Supreme Court

Robinson v. Prins

777 P.2d 696, 161 Ariz. 198, 34 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11, 1989 Ariz. LEXIS 85

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 1989

DocketCV-89-0090-PR

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 777 P.2d 696 (Robinson v. Prins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Prins, 777 P.2d 696, 161 Ariz. 198, 34 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11, 1989 Ariz. LEXIS 85 (Ark. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMERON, Justice.

Petitioner, Ned Robinson, was arrested for driving while under the influence. A.R.S. § 28-692. Robinson was taken to the police station and verbally agreed to take a breath test. When the officer administered the test, Robinson took the mouthpiece, placed it in his mouth and appeared to blow into the machine. However, the machine indicated that Robinson had not supplied a sufficient sample for an accurate breath test. The officer gave Robinson several chances to produce an adequate sample, but none was ever given. Robinson claimed to have “bronchitis or something” and claimed that it was too hard to blow into the machine. A hearing officer suspended Robinson’s driver’s license for one year for allegedly refusing to submit to a breath test. A.R.S. § 28-691. Robinson appealed to the superior court, which found that the evidence did not support the hearing officer’s decision. The state appealed.

The Court of Appeals, Division One, upheld the judgment of the superior court. Robinson v. Prins, 161 Ariz. 195, 777 P.2d 693 (App.1989). The state petitioned this court for review, which we granted.

We have read the court of appeals’ opinion and approve its reasoning. We affirm the decision upholding the findings of the superior court.

Affirmed.

GORDON, C.J., FELDMAN, V.C.J., and MOELLER and CORCORAN, JJ., concur.

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

CAMERON, Justice.

Petitioner, Ned Robinson, was arrested for driving while under the influence. A.R.S. § 28-692. Robinson was taken to the police station and verbally agreed to take a breath test. When the officer administered the test, Robinson took the mouthpiece, placed it in his mouth and appeared to blow into the machine. However, the machine indicated that Robinson had not supplied a sufficient sample for an accurate breath test. The officer gave Robinson several chances to produce an adequate sample, but none was ever given. Robinson claimed to have “bronchitis or something” and claimed that it was too hard to blow into the machine. A hearing officer suspended Robinson’s driver’s license for one year for allegedly refusing to submit to a breath test. A.R.S. § 28-691. Robinson appealed to the superior court, which found that the evidence did not support the hearing officer’s decision. The state appealed.

The Court of Appeals, Division One, upheld the judgment of the superior court. Robinson v. Prins, 161 Ariz. 195, 777 P.2d 693 (App.1989). The state petitioned this court for review, which we granted.

We have read the court of appeals’ opinion and approve its reasoning. We affirm the decision upholding the findings of the superior court.

Affirmed.

GORDON, C.J., FELDMAN, V.C.J., and MOELLER and CORCORAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 P.2d 696, 161 Ariz. 198, 34 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11, 1989 Ariz. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-prins-ariz-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack