State v. Short

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Short

898 P.2d 223, 135 Or. App. 289, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 385607

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 28, 1995

Docket92-7397; CA A82259

StatusPublished

This text of 898 P.2d 223 (State v. Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Short, 898 P.2d 223, 135 Or. App. 289, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 385607 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) for acts committed on October 25, 1992. When the officer asked defendant to submit to an Intoxilyzer, he advised her that, if she refused to take the test, her license would be suspended for one year and that, if she took the test and failed it, her license would be suspended for 90 days. Defendant refused to take the test. She argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the evidence that her refusal would result in a longer suspension than would result from taking the test and failing it.

Defendant’s argument was answered contrary to her position in City of Portland v. Stanley, 53 Or App 254, 631 P2d 826, rev den 291 Or 771 (1981). There, the arresting officer testified that he had informed the defendant of the consequences of refusing to take the breath test and, in closing argument, the prosecutor commented on the consequences.¹ We held that the prosecutor’s comments on the refusal and the inferences to be drawn from it were proper.

Here, defendant has raised no issue that her refusal to take the test should not have been admitted into evidence.² Indeed, at trial, she agreed to stipulate to her refusal. The court did not err in permitting testimony as to what the consequences of that refusal were.

Affirmed.

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

De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) for acts committed on October 25, 1992. When the officer asked defendant to submit to an Intoxilyzer, he advised her that, if she refused to take the test, her license would be suspended for one year and that, if she took the test and failed it, her license would be suspended for 90 days. Defendant refused to take the test. She argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the evidence that her refusal would result in a longer suspension than would result from taking the test and failing it.

Defendant’s argument was answered contrary to her position in City of Portland v. Stanley, 53 Or App 254, 631 P2d 826, rev den 291 Or 771 (1981). There, the arresting officer testified that he had informed the defendant of the consequences of refusing to take the breath test and, in closing argument, the prosecutor commented on the consequences.¹ We held that the prosecutor’s comments on the refusal and the inferences to be drawn from it were proper.

Here, defendant has raised no issue that her refusal to take the test should not have been admitted into evidence.² Indeed, at trial, she agreed to stipulate to her refusal. The court did not err in permitting testimony as to what the consequences of that refusal were.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 P.2d 223, 135 Or. App. 289, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 968, 1995 WL 385607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-short-orctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack