Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1953–1966 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. McGinnisgreen2 sentences1966In People v. McGinnis, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945 [ 267 P.2d 458 ], the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court held that when a person has been arrested for drunken driving, his refusal to submit to an intoximeter test is conduct that tends to show a consciousness of guilt and is admissible in evidence against him. 1966In People v. McGinnis, 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945 [ 267 P.2d 458 ], the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court held that when a person has been arrested for drunken driving, his refusal to submit to an intoximeter test is conduct that tends to show a consciousness of guilt and is admissible in evidence against him. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences1959In People v. Simmons, supra (1946), 28 Cal.2d 699 [ 172 P.2d 18 ], it is indicated (p. 715) that an accusation of crime does call for a reply, even from a person under arrest. 1959In People v. Simmons, supra (1946), 28 Cal.2d 699 [ 172 P.2d 18 ], it is indicated (p. 715) that an accusation of crime does call for a reply, even from a person under arrest. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lissgreen2 sentences1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). 1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). 1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gentekosgreen2 sentences1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). 1966In reaching this conclusion the court analogized the situation to other situations in which the defendant’s conduct reveals a consciousness of guilt, for example, by flight (People v. Anderson, 57 Cal.App. 721, 727 [ 208 P. 204 ]); the use of an alias (People v. Liss, 35 Cal.2d 570, 576 [ 219 P.2d 789 ]); or making contradictory statements to conceal the true facts (People v. Gentekos, 118 Cal.App. 177,182 [ 4 P.2d 964 ]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Newberngreen2 sentences1962In In re Newbern (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 862, 866 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 80 ], the defendant asked the arresting officers for an intoximeter test and was informed that such tests were not given to a person arrested for being drunk in public view. 1962In In re Newbern (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 862, 866 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 80 ], the defendant asked the arresting officers for an intoximeter test and was informed that such tests were not given to a person arrested for being drunk in public view. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harringtongreen2 sentences1959(People v. Harrington (1955), 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 902, 906 [ 291 P.2d 584 ].) He did. 1959(People v. Harrington (1955), 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 902, 906 [ 291 P.2d 584 ].) He did. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tallegreen2 sentences1959The record does not indicate who asked the question in response to which "The defendant testified that he refused an intoximeter test on the ground that the giving of the test was a violation of his constitutional rights," and "objected on constitutional grounds to testifying to any facts regarding the giving of or refusal to take the intoximeter test." While it is established that the defendant is not called upon to "explain or deny by his testimony any evidence in the facts against him" until those facts have been established prima facie in the trial itself, since until then, there is no rig 1959The record does not indicate who asked the question in response to which "The defendant testified that he refused an intoximeter test on the ground that the giving of the test was a violation of his constitutional rights," and "objected on constitutional grounds to testifying to any facts regarding the giving of or refusal to take the intoximeter test." While it is established that the defendant is not called upon to "explain or deny by his testimony any evidence in the facts against him" until those facts have been established prima facie in the trial itself, since until then, there is no rig | 1 | 1 |
Grunewald v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1959In Grunewald v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 391, 424 [ 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931, 954 , 62 A.L.R.2d 1344, 1368 ], the court held "under the circumstances of this case (italics supplied) it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to permit cross-examination of petitioner on his plea of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury," because the probative value of the issue of the witness' credibility was so negligible as to be far outweighed by its possible impermissible impact on the jury. 1959In Grunewald v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 391, 424 [ 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931, 954 , 62 A.L.R.2d 1344, 1368 ], the court held "under the circumstances of this case (italics supplied) it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to permit cross-examination of petitioner on his plea of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury," because the probative value of the issue of the witness' credibility was so negligible as to be far outweighed by its possible impermissible impact on the jury. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1959(People v. Watson (1956), 46 [ 170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 834 ] Cal.2d 818, 832 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) There is nothing in the record to show that this was exceeded, in asking concerning the intoximeter test. 1959(People v. Watson (1956), 46 Cal.2d 818, 832 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) There is nothing in the record to show that this was exceeded, in asking concerning the intoximeter test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cobbgreen2 sentences1959(People v. Cobb (1955), 45 Cal.2d 158, 161 [ 287 P.2d 752 ].) [26] We have held previously that the fact of refusal to take the test is admissible in evidence, without violation of any constitutional right of a defendant, and that there may be comment upon the refusal (People v. McGinnis (1953), 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 946 [ 267 P.2d 458 ]. 1959(People v. Cobb (1955), 45 Cal.2d 158, 161 [ 287 P.2d 752 ].) [26] We have held previously that the fact of refusal to take the test is admissible in evidence, without violation of any constitutional right of a defendant, and that there may be comment upon the refusal (People v. McGinnis (1953), 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 945, 946 [ 267 P.2d 458 ]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kendallgreen2 sentences1954(Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 [ 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; People v. Kendall, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 215 [ 244 P.2d 418 ].) No such conduct is found to have preceded the intoximeter test of appellant. 1954(Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 [ 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; People v. Kendall, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 215 [ 244 P.2d 418 ].) No such conduct is found to have preceded the intoximeter test of appellant. | 1 | 1 |
Rochin v. Californiared2 sentences1954(Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 [ 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; People v. Kendall, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 215 [ 244 P.2d 418 ].) No such conduct is found to have preceded the intoximeter test of appellant. 1954(Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 [ 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; People v. Kendall, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 215 [ 244 P.2d 418 ].) No such conduct is found to have preceded the intoximeter test of appellant. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Ryangreen2 sentences1954He was therefore guilty of violating section 501, supra. (In re Ryan, 61 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 142 P.2d 769 ].) No Prejudice Caused by Rulings on Admissibility Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the court’s overruling his objection to the introduction of the intoximeter test; that after an argument an officer struck him and left a bruise on his stomach; that he submitted to the intoximeter test by reason of his fear of other punishment. 1954He was therefore guilty of violating section 501, supra. (In re Ryan, 61 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 142 P.2d 769 ].) No Prejudice Caused by Rulings on Admissibility Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the court’s overruling his objection to the introduction of the intoximeter test; that after an argument an officer struck him and left a bruise on his stomach; that he submitted to the intoximeter test by reason of his fear of other punishment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Haeussler
red
2 sentences1953(People v. Haeussler (1953), 41 Cal.2d 252 [ 260 P.2d 8 ].) The judgment is affirmed. 1953(People v. Haeussler (1953), 41 Cal.2d 252 [ 260 P.2d 8 ].) The judgment is affirmed. | 2 | 1953–1953 |
People v. Dorado
green
2 sentences1965The voluntary taking of an intoximeter test does not constitute the making of an admission prohibited by People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], and the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. 1965The voluntary taking of an intoximeter test does not constitute the making of an admission prohibited by People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], and the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Benson
green
2 sentences1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. 1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Koenig
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. McQuilkin
neutral
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Stacy v. State
green
1 sentence1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Toms v. State
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Bock
yellow
2 sentences1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. 1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Natwick v. Moyer
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Libby
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Warren
neutral
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Gardner v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. 1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. 1959Accord: State of Idaho v. Bock, supra (1958), 80 Idaho 296 [ 328 P.2d 1065, 1071 ], listing authorities in accord; State of South Carolina v. Smith, supra (1956), 230 S.C. 164 [ 94 S.E.2d 886 ]; Gardner v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1954), 195 Va. 945 [ 81 S.E.2d 614, 618 ]; State of Iowa v. Benson (1941), 230 Iowa 1168 [ 300 N.W. 275, 277 ].) [27] In any case the defendant is entitled to explain why he declined to take the intoximeter test. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
People v. Coppock
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
People v. Kovacik
green
2 sentences1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma 1959Consult also: State of Iowa v. Koenig (1949), 240 Iowa 592 [ 36 N.W.2d 765, 767 ]; People v. Coppock (1954), 206 Misc. 89 [ 133 N.Y.S.2d 174, 177 ], discussing the test and the adoption of the New York statute establishing the evidentiary effect of such tests, and providing for revocation of operator's licenses for refusal to take the test; People v. Kovacik, supra (1954), 205 Misc. 275 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 , 500 et seq.] describing the tests and setting out the New York statute; State v. Warren (1953), 75 Ariz. 123 [ 252 P.2d 781, 782-783 ], describing the Harger test; Toms v. State of Oklahoma | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Sausser v. Barrack green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.