State v. Miller, 19322
| Citation | 257 S.C. 213,185 S.E.2d 359 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19322,19322 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Eddie Dois MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Moore, Flowers & Doar, Georgetown, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, and Asst. Attys. Gen. Joel E. Gottlieb and Joseph C. Good, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
The appellant was convicted in magistrate's court of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appeals upon three exceptions from an order of the Court of General Sessions for Georgetown County affirming his conviction. We quote from the return of the magistrate:
The first and second exceptions charge error in permitting testimony that appellant refused to take a breathalyzer test, and in permitting comment thereon, the error assigned being that such testimony violated appellant's privilege against self-incrimination. The third exception charges that the inference urged upon the jury in summation was prejudicial in that it exceeded fair comment on appellant's refusal to take the test.
In State v. Smith, 230 S.C. 164, 94 S.E.2d 886 (1956), we rejected the claim that the admission of testimony that the defendant, when charged with driving under the influence, refused to submit to a blood test, and the allowance of comment thereon before the jury, violated defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Recognizing, as he must, that the Smith decision is a controlling precedent on the constitutional issue tendered by him, the appellant has petitioned that it be modified or overruled 'on the grounds that the rule set forth in said case has been modified or overruled by more recent decisions of The United States Supreme Court.' Appellant cites Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), his principal reliance being upon the dictum contained in a rather involved footnote to the Schmerber opinion, viz., footnote 9 at 765, 86 S.Ct. at 1833.
Suffice it to say that we find nothing in these decisions which impugns our judgment in Smith. We adhere to this decision which is in accord with the great weight of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fish
...Com. v. Dougherty, 259 Pa.Super. 88, 393 A.2d 730 (1978); The State v. Smith, 230 S.C. 164, 94 S.E.2d 886 (1956); State v. Miller, 257 S.C. 213, 185 S.E.2d 359 (1971); State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 385 A.2d 1085 (1978); State v. Welch, 136 Vt. 442, 394 A.2d 1115 (1978); State v. Wall, 137 Vt......
-
Hill v. State
...80, 322 A.2d 453 (1974); with section 154(c)'s provision for automatic suspension of the accused's driving privilege, State v. Miller, 257 S.C. 213, 185 S.E.2d 359 (1971); and with allowing evidence of the person's refusal to be tested to be admitted into evidence. Instead, we agree with th......
-
State v. Cormier
...455 U.S. 952, 102 S.Ct. 1457, 71 L.Ed.2d 668 (1982); Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 259 Pa.Super. 88, 393 A.2d 730 (1978); State v. Miller, 257 S.C. 213, 185 S.E.2d 359 (1971); State v. Wall, 137 Vt. 482, 408 A.2d 632 (1979), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1060, 100 S.Ct. 993, 62 L......
-
State v. Albright
...v. Tabisz, 129 N.J.Super. 80, 322 A.2d 453 (1974); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 229 Pa.Super. 131, 324 A.2d 441 (1974); State v. Miller, 257 S.C. 213, 185 S.E.2d 359 (1971); Vernon v. State, 512 P.2d 814 (Okl.Cr. 1973); Gardner v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 945, 81 S.E.2d 614 (1954); Campbell v. Su......