McCullick v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | S-83-751,Nos. M-83-418,s. M-83-418 |
| Citation | 682 P.2d 235 |
| Parties | Ronnie Ray McCULLICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Rhena Navajo EDWARDS, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
These cases were consolidated by order on April 19, 1984, to decide whether evidence that a defendant charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol refused to submit to a chemical sobriety test is admissible at a trial on the merits.
The appellant in Case No. M-83-418, Ronnie Ray McCullick, was convicted in the District Court of Kay County after such evidence was admitted by the trial court. He was sentenced to twenty (20) days in the county jail, fined five hundred dollars ($500), and appeals.
In Case No. S-83-751, the trial court excluded evidence showing that the accused, Rhena Navajo Edwards, refused to submit to a sobriety test. She was acquitted, and the State appeals the trial court's decision on a question of law reserved.
The parties to these appeals freely admit that this Court has held consistently that such evidence is inadmissible. See, Mathes v. State, 552 P.2d 415 (Okl.Cr.1976), Engler v. State, 316 P.2d 625 (Okl.Cr.1957). Relying on South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), in which the Supreme Court held that a state statute allowing evidence of a refusal to be used against the accused did not violate the Fifth Amendment, the State argues that such evidence is now admissible in Oklahoma.
We take judicial notice that the judges of the Seventh Judicial District sitting en banc, found that Neville, supra, did not affect a change in Oklahoma law.
A plain reading of Oklahoma's Implied Consent Law, 47 O.S.Supp.1983, §§ 751 et seq, demonstrates that the legislature granted an absolute right to one arrested for DUI to refuse to submit to a test to determine the alcohol content of his blood, although not without certain consequences attaching to said refusal. The only sanction provided, however, is revocation of the driver's license of one who refused to submit to a sobriety test.
We find that this is a proper instance for applying the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," meaning that the mention of one thing in a statute implies exclusion of another. State v. Smith, 539 P.2d 754 (Okl.Cr.1975). We note that the legislature is currently debating the merits of House Bill No. 1432, which would allow evidence of a refusal to take a sobriety...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hooks
...had refused to submit to a blood test to determine the presence of intoxicants in his body. Appellant relies on McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235 (Okl.Crim.App.1984), a case in which the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that evidence of refusal to submit to a blood test is inadmissibl......
-
United States v. Zimmerman
...the application of the Oklahoma implied consent law. In rejecting this argument the court said:Appellant relies on McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235 (Okl.Crim.App.1984), a case in which the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that evidence of refusal to submit to a blood test is inadmiss......
-
Lozoya v. State
...one thing in a statute implies exclusion of another). State ex rel. Hicks v. Freeman, 795 P.2d 110, 112 (Okl.Cr.1990); McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235, 236 (Okl.Cr.1984). The Legislature had the opportunity to insert the drug trafficking statute as one of the enumerated crimes rendering Pe......
-
Harris v. State, F-87-965
...permitted to work against the interest of the defendant. Id. at 627. Thus, Engler laid the predicate, later reiterated in McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235 (Okl.Cr.1984), that the admissibility of a refusal to submit to a sobriety test must be resolved by the legislative The dissent urges th......