results test in Arkansas

2025Id.

2014Id.

1999Medlock v. State, 332 Ark. 106 , 964 S.W.2d 196 (1998).

1999Medlock v. State, 332 Ark. 106 , 964 S.W.2d 196 (1998).

2021Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).

1998Medlock v. State, 332 Ark. 106 , 964 S.W.2d 196 (1998); Spicer v. State, 32 Ark.

1998While not directly in issue, our court cited the Spicer rule with approval in Massengale v. State, 319 Ark. 743 , 894 S.W.2d 594 (1995).

1998While not directly in issue, our court cited the Spicer rule with approval in Massengale v. State, 319 Ark. 743 , 894 S.W.2d 594 (1995).

1997Id.

1990As observed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Hill v. State, 366 So. 2d 318 (Ala. 1979), the better reasoned decisions hold that refusal to take a chemical test for intoxication may indicate the defendant’s fear of the results of the test and his consciousness of guilt.

1990Therefore, compliance with section 1002(2)(i) has not been met and, according to section 12-9-108(a), Stigaullde “shall not take any official action as a police officer, and any action taken shall be held as invalid.” We also stated in Grable, supra (citing Robbins v. State, 219 Ark. 376 , 242 S.W.2d 640 (1951)), that it is the duty of the state to give notice of the offense charged in the charges levied against the defendant.

1990Therefore, compliance with section 1002(2)(i) has not been met and, according to section 12-9-108(a), Stigaullde “shall not take any official action as a police officer, and any action taken shall be held as invalid.” We also stated in Grable, supra (citing Robbins v. State, 219 Ark. 376 , 242 S.W.2d 640 (1951)), that it is the duty of the state to give notice of the offense charged in the charges levied against the defendant.

1990In deciding that this evidence was relevant, and thus admissible, the Alabama Court relied on the Ohio decision of City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St. 2d 121 , 239 N.E.2d 40 (1968), where it was stated: Where a defendant is being accused of intoxication and is not intoxicated, the taking of a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication should establish that he is not intoxicated.

1990In deciding that this evidence was relevant, and thus admissible, the Alabama Court relied on the Ohio decision of City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St. 2d 121 , 239 N.E.2d 40 (1968), where it was stated: Where a defendant is being accused of intoxication and is not intoxicated, the taking of a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication should establish that he is not intoxicated.

1989While it is true that allowing testimony of this nature will not always constitute prejudicial error, Van Cleave v. State, 268 Ark. 514 , 598 S.W.2d 65 (1980), we cannot fault the trial court’s use of caution in excluding such testimony.

1989While it is true that allowing testimony of this nature will not always constitute prejudicial error, Van Cleave v. State, 268 Ark. 514 , 598 S.W.2d 65 (1980), we cannot fault the trial court’s use of caution in excluding such testimony.

1988This argument overlooks the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

1984In the case of State v. Streich, 87 Wis.2d 209 , 274 N.W.2d 635 (1979), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated that an oral stipulation could not satisfy its case law requirement of a written stipulation for the admission of polygraph results; however, the Court refused to reverse the defendant’s conviction because the record showed there that appellant knew the results of the test would be used as evidence at trial.

1984In the case of State v. Streich, 87 Wis.2d 209 , 274 N.W.2d 635 (1979), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated that an oral stipulation could not satisfy its case law requirement of a written stipulation for the admission of polygraph results; however, the Court refused to reverse the defendant’s conviction because the record showed there that appellant knew the results of the test would be used as evidence at trial.

1930One may therefore make a reasonable use of his right though it may create some annoyance or inconvenience to his neighbor.” Powell v. Bentley, 34 W.