DUI Attorney Virginia

FREDERICK J. HAMMOND v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
May 11, 1993, Decided

On January 30, 1991, Trooper of the Virginia State Police observed the appellant’s car pass through the stationary radar that Stinson was operating. Appellant was traveling at seventy-three miles per hour in fifty-five miles per hour zone.  The police officer pulled over Appellant for speeding.  Thereafter Appellant performed some field sobriety tests.  He stated he had two beers and one glass of wine. Then the appellant under arrest for driving while under the influence.  After the implied consent law was explained to him, the appellant chose to take a breath test.  The operator of the testing equipment insisted that the appellant take a blood test. However, the appellant continued to insist on taking a breath test.  Neither test was administered and the appellant was thereafter arrested for refusal to submit to a blood test.  At the trial for the DUI offense and the blood test refusal in the Fairfax General District Court, the appellant was found guilty of DUI but not guilty of the refusal. Appellant appealed the DUI conviction to the Fairfax Circuit Court.  The trial court sustained the Commonwealth’s objection, relying on Code § 18.2-268.10 and convicted for guilty of DUI.  Then the Appellant appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County to this Court.

Issue:

Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence that defendant requested a breath test after the Appellant’s arrest?
Whether the trail court erred in convicting the appellant for DUI?

Discussion:

The Court finds that the trial judge did not err in refusing to admit evidence that defendant requested a breath test after his arrest.  The court ruled that the refusal to take the test or the request for a test was probative of innocent or guilt only at the time a defendant was pulled over.  The court concluded that the same was not true when the test was requested after the arrest while at the stationhouse because at that point the test was required and not consensual. Thus, the evidence offered by defendant was not relevant and was therefore properly excluded by the trial court.  Hence this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.