People v. Roach, Cr. 20667
| Decision Date | 04 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 20667 |
| Citation | 108 Cal.App.3d 891,166 Cal.Rptr. 801 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence Rea ROACH, Defendant and Appellant. |
D. Lowell Jensen, Dist. Atty. of the County of Alameda, Ralph Countryman, Deputy Dist. Atty., Oakland, for plaintiff and respondent.
James C. Hooley, Public Defender of the County of Alameda, Jay B. Gaskill, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, for defendant and appellant.
*
Lawrence Rea Roach appeals from a judgment rendered by the municipal court after a jury found him guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. (Veh.Code, § 23102.) The cause is before us on certification after appeal to the appellate department of the superior court. (Code Civ.Proc., § 911.)
A highway patrol officer stopped appellant after seeing his car weaving on the highway. The officer saw "track marks," characteristic of narcotics users, on appellant's forearms. After administering a field sobriety test which appellant performed poorly, the officer told appellant a chemical test was required. Appellant submitted to a breath test, which indicated a blood alcohol level of .08 percent. The officer then asked appellant to supply a urine sample, by reason of "the drug symptomology which (he) exhibited," telling him that the purpose of the test was to detect the presence or absence of drugs in his system. Appellant refused.
The municipal court denied a pretrial motion to preclude use, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, of testimony by the officer that appellant had refused to provide a urine specimen after the officer told him the purpose of a urine test. The sole question certified for review is whether this ruling by the municipal court was correct.
It would be reasonable for a trier of fact to infer that appellant feared the authorities would obtain evidence that he was under the influence of an opiate had he agreed to provide the sample, and evidence of refusal to submit to such a test is ordinarily admissible. (People v. Ellis (1966) 65 Cal.2d 529, 537-538, 55 Cal.Rptr. 385, 421 P.2d 393; People v. Suddeth, 65 Cal.2d 543, 547, 55 Cal.Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401; People v. Perry, 271 Cal.App.2d 84, 106, 76 Cal.Rptr. 725.) He asserts, however, that evidence of his refusal was inadmissible here because he was exercising a statutory right to submit to a single test, as provided by Vehicle Code section 13353.
Appellant was arrested for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs, and he cites no authority for the proposition that one so charged is entitled to choose among chemical tests. By its terms, the implied consent law applies only to one "lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morales
...intoxicant. (See People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1235, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1, citing People v. Roach (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 891, 893-894, 166 Cal.Rptr. 801 [proper to instruct that refusing to take a urine test is evidence of consciousness of guilt]; ante, 104 Cal. Rptr.2d ......
-
People v. Johnson
...P.2d 401 [refusal to give breath sample]; People v. Huston, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 218, 258 Cal.Rptr. 393; People v. Roach (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 891, 894, 166 Cal.Rptr. 801 [refusal to give urine Second, he argues that even if the jury could properly have been authorized to consider th......
-
People v. Huston
...of such a refusal is admissible even if the police misled the suspect as to the consequences of refusing. (People v. Roach (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 891, 894, 166 Cal.Rptr. 801.) Defendant's refusal is no more or less probative because an inexperienced attorney, rather than the police, misled h......
-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. A.R. (In re Noah G.)
...Cal.Rptr. 716 [evidence of a refusal to undergo a blood alcohol test is evidence of a consciousness of guilt]; People v. Roach (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 891, 893, 166 Cal.Rptr. 801 [refusal to undergo a narcotics test in a driving under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs prosecution is......
-
Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
...affected by the fact that the defendant was misled by police about the consequences of refusing. See People v. Roach (1st Dist.1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 891, 894; see also People v. Huston (4th Dist.1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 192, 216-17 (considering but not deciding whether admitting D's refusal base......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. Roa, 11 Cal. App. 5th 428, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604 (2d Dist. 2017)—Ch. 2, §11.2.2(1)(b)[2][a]; Ch. 3-A, §3.4.1 People v. Roach, 108 Cal. App. 3d 891, 166 Cal. Rptr. 801 (1st Dist. 1980)—Ch. 1, §4.8.6 People v. Robbie, 92 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479 (1st Dist. 2001)—Ch. 2, §11......