People v. Kerrigan
| Decision Date | 24 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 2079,1 |
| Citation | 8 Mich.App. 216,154 N.W.2d 43 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KERRIGAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Fred A. Garon, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
In August, 1965, the defendant, John Kerrigan, was arrested and charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1 The defendant was taken to police headquarters where he was given a breathalyzer test by a police officer. At trial the court ruled that the results of the test were inadmissible because it was not convinced that the defendant had been advised that he had a right to refuse to take the test. The court, however, found the defendant guilty on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses who had observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle and observed him after he was stopped by the police.
Defendant contends that P.A.1949, No. 300, § 625a, as added by P.A.1960, No. 148, (C.L.S.1961, § 257.625a), and amended by P.A.1964, No. 104, (Stat.Ann.1965 Cum.Supp. § 9.2325(1)), imposes a duty upon the police to advise one accused of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor that he has a right to a blood test.
The pertinent subsections thereof are as follows:
'(4) The person charged shall be advised of his right to refuse to take any test provided for in this act and the refusal on the part of any person to submit to any such test shall not be admissible in any cirminal prosecution relating to driving a vehicle while under the influence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Herjeczki
... ... upon highly empirical data wholly supports the factual ... accuracy of the presumption. Cf. People v. Kovacik, ... 205 Misc. 275, 128 N.Y.S.2d 492 (1954). Although such ... [61 Pa. D. & C.2d 151] ... information plainly is not within ... prerequisite to administration of a breath test, it could ... have done so in the amended statute: People v ... Kerrigan, 8 Mich.App. 216, 154 N.W.2d 43 (1967) ... Under ... Pennsylvania's Implied Consent Statute any person who ... operates a motor ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Brackin
...test by his own physician: Commonwealth v. Miller, 52 D. & C.2d 630 (1971); Commonwealth v. Ode, 53 D. & C.2d 563 (1971); People v. Kerrigan, supra. reached the conclusion that defendant possesses only a statutory right, the problem of whether or not he consented to the taking of this test ......
-
Commonwealth v. Hoover
... ... the Fifth Amendment was ... not abridged by the use of the evidence at the time it was ... introduced." ... The ... court in People v. Suchocki, 291 N.Y.S.2d 237, 57 ... Misc.2d 36, came to the same result. There, defendant ... objected to the introduction of the results of the ... sample from a defendant, forcibly, if necessary, without ... violating defendant's constitutional rights ... People ... v. Kerrigan, 154 N.W.2d 43, 8 Mich.App. 216 (Ct. of ... Appeals, 1967), cited in both of these Pennsylvania ... decisions, points out that under a Michigan ... ...
-
People v. Egner, Docket No. 2711
...of the trial court. Further, for the reasons stated in People v. Church (1966), 5 Micha.App. 303, 146 N.W.2d 714; People v. Kerrigan (1967), 8 Mich.App. 216, 154 N.W.2d 43; People v. Collett (1967), 8 Mich.App. 419, 154 N.W.2d 531; and People v. Alford (1967), 8 Mich.App. 211, 154 N.W.2d 48......