State v. Cohn

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Cohn

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1988

DocketCase No. 87-4518-AC-A (County Court Case Nos. 87-82983-PH and 87-82984-PH)

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160 (State v. Cohn) 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

State v. Cohn, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

CHARLES M. HARRIS, Circuit Judge.

The issue here is not whether the results of a field sobriety test should be admissible in evidence, it is whether the refusal to perform such test should be admitted in evidence if the defendant was not warned of that consequence of his refusal.

[161]*161In Herring v State, 501 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Court held that the defendant’s refusal to submit to a similar request was inadmissible not only because it lacked any “significant probative value” but, also, because its admission would be unfair where the police may have led the defendant to believe that he had a right to refuse.

There is nothing in this record to show that the defendant was told either that he was required to take the test or that his refusal to take the tests would be used against him in court.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

CHARLES M. HARRIS, Circuit Judge.

The issue here is not whether the results of a field sobriety test should be admissible in evidence, it is whether the refusal to perform such test should be admitted in evidence if the defendant was not warned of that consequence of his refusal.

[161]*161In Herring v State, 501 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Court held that the defendant’s refusal to submit to a similar request was inadmissible not only because it lacked any “significant probative value” but, also, because its admission would be unfair where the police may have led the defendant to believe that he had a right to refuse.

There is nothing in this record to show that the defendant was told either that he was required to take the test or that his refusal to take the tests would be used against him in court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cohn-flacirct-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack