Home/Florida Circuit Courts/State v. Cohn

State v. Cohn

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160
Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided December 1, 1988·No. Case No. 87-4518-AC-A (County Court Case Nos. 87-82983-PH and 87-82984-PH)·Published

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

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

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 160 (State v. Cohn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

South Dakota v. Neville
459 U.S. 553 (Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Young
483 So. 2d 31 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Sambrine v. State
386 So. 2d 546 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Herring v. State
501 So. 2d 19 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Fackler v. Genetzky
638 N.W.2d 521 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
Pastori v. State
456 So. 2d 1212 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
State v. Duke
378 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)