Proof of Operation for Refusal – State v. Wright
Proof of Operation for Refusal – State v. Wright
This recent case in my home state of Kentucky highlights an important issue that comes up a lot in DUI cases – whether the prosecution can use a defendant’s refusal to submit to chemical testing as evidence of guilt. The Kentucky Supreme Court just issued a ruling that clarifies when such refusals can be used as evidence.
In State v. Wright, the defendant was pulled over for speeding. The officer noticed signs of intoxication like bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, so he asked Wright to take some field sobriety tests. Wright refused to take the tests and also refused a chemical breath test when asked back at the station.
At trial, the prosecution tried to use Wright’s refusal to take the tests as evidence that he was intoxicated. The defense objected, arguing that this violated Wright’s constitutional rights. The trial court agreed and prohibited the prosecution from mentioning the refusals.
The case went up to the Kentucky Supreme Court on appeal. The main question was whether using the refusals as evidence violated Wright’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court looked at previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.
Back in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Schmerber v. California that the Fifth Amendment does not protect defendants from being compelled to provide physical evidence like blood samples. So the Court said Wright’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by using his refusal to provide breath/blood samples against him.
However, the Court noted that the prosecution still has to lay a proper foundation by presenting testimony that Wright was read the implied consent law. This law says drivers consent to chemical testing as a condition of driving in Kentucky.
The officer has to testify that Wright was informed of this law and the consequences of refusal before the refusal can be used as evidence of intoxication. Since the prosecution didn’t do this at trial, the Supreme Court affirmed that the evidence was properly excluded in Wright’s case.
This case highlights that prosecutors have to follow certain steps to get refusals admitted. The officer has to read the implied consent law and the defendant has to refuse the chemical test after being properly informed. Otherwise, the refusal is not admissible.
Defense attorneys can watch out for this issue and object if the prosecution tries to bring up a refusal without laying the proper groundwork. However, if the officer testifies that he read the implied consent law and the defendant still refused testing, the refusal generally can be used as evidence of intoxication.
The Court’s ruling follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead in finding that Fifth Amendment rights are not violated. So we can expect more DUI cases where refusals to submit to chemical testing are used as incriminating evidence, as long as the prosecution follows the right steps.
This can make it tougher for defendants in DUI cases in Kentucky. That’s because most drivers don’t realize that refusing the chemical test can actually be used against them in court. Many think they are protecting themselves by refusing, when in reality it gives the prosecution useful evidence.
So if you’re stopped on suspicion of DUI, it’s usually best not to refuse the chemical testing. An experienced DUI defense attorney can help evaluate your case and build defenses against chemical test results rather than relying on a refusal. Let me know if you need any advice or representation for a DUI charge.
One final interesting note – the Court pointed out that evidence of the refusal itself cannot be used to establish operation or control of a vehicle while intoxicated. So the prosecution still needs other evidence to prove those elements. But the refusal can help show the defendant was actually impaired once operation is established.