State v. Romell

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Romell

204 N.W.2d 573, 189 Neb. 705, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 873

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1973

DocketNo. 38631

StatusPublished

This text of 204 N.W.2d 573 (State v. Romell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Romell, 204 N.W.2d 573, 189 Neb. 705, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 873 (Neb. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.

Defendant, Robert Romell, prosecutes this appeal [706]*706from his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor, third offense. We affirm.

Defendant premises his appeal on two grounds. They appear in his brief as follows: “(A) The trial court erred in admitting evidence that the defendant had refused to submit to chemical tests for blood alcohol content. (B) The trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of all the evidence.”

We have examined the record in this, cause and find that the motion for a directed verdict was properly overruled. The evidence was sufficient to require the submission of the issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence to the jury.

The court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant had refused to submit to chemical tests for blood alcohol content. This issue is fully covered in State v. Meints (1972), ante p. 264, 202 N. W. 2d 202, and State v. Manley (1972), ante p. 415, 202 N. W. 2d 831.

Judgment affirmed. See Rule 20, Revised Rules of Supreme Court.

Affirmed.

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