FRANCIS BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Francis Brown was retried for vehicular homicide after his initial conviction was reversed due to an improper blood test. On retrial, the state introduced evidence of Brown's refusal to submit to the blood test, which this court held was improper under Sambrine v. State because drivers have a statutory right to refuse testing.
Evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test is inadmissible because section 322.261, Florida Statutes gives drivers the statutory right to refuse testing by affirmatively revoking implied consent. The admission of such evidence was improper and requires reversal.
[1] A driver's refusal to submit to a blood test is inadmissible into evidence when the driver has a statutory right to refuse testing.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test is inadmissible when the prior admission of the blood test results was deemed improper.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Sambrine states that section 322.261, Florida Statutes (1979) gives a driver the right to refuse testing by affirmatively revoking his implied consent.”
Establishes the statutory basis for the right to refuse blood testing that invalidates prior precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was charged with vehicular homicide and DWI manslaughter following a collision that killed a passenger in his car. His original convictions were…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dwi Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Francis Brown was charged with vehicular homicide and DWI manslaughter following a collision in which a passenger in Brown’s car was killed. Appellant’s original convictions for the charges arising from this unfortunate and deadly incident were reversed by this court because a blood sample was taken over his objection and introduced at trial. Brown v. State, 371 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), aff’d, State v. Brown, 386 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1980).
After remand and retrial, Brown was found guilty of vehicular homicide. He appeals that judgment of guilt and sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
Of the four points raised in this appeal, only the third merits discussion. It concerns the fact that during retrial the state was allowed to introduce testimony regarding Brown’s refusal to submit to that same blood test. Therefore, although the jury could not be informed of the test results because of this court’s mandate in Brown, they were told that appellant had refused to take the test (and, in fact, misled to believe that no test was taken). We conclude that the holdings in two recent cases require reversal under these circumstances.
This court held in State v. Duke, 378 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) that one’s refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible into evidence against an offending driver because such a test is compulsory. However, the supreme court in Sambrine v. State, 386 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1980) has invalidated the Duke holding. Sambrine states that section 322.261, Florida Statutes (1979) gives a driver the right to refuse testing by affirmatively revoking his implied consent. Thus, when a driver exercises his statutory option to refuse testing, the result of any test taken over objection is inadmissible at trial.
This court recently applied the mandate of Sambrine to facts quite similar to those in the case sub judice. In State v. Ducks-worth, 408 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), we wrote that inasmuch as Sambrine invalidated our holding in Duke, the state can no longer introduce into evidence the fact that the defendant refused to submit to a test for alcohol in his system. We adhere to Ducksworth, recede from Duke, and hold that the admission into evidence of appellant’s refusal to submit to the blood test was improper. However, we note that the suppression of all evidence relating to the blood test herein does not dictate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence nor does it mandate dismissal. This cause is, therefore, REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 430 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1983)…McDONALD, Justice. We have accepted jurisdiction of this cause, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, because the district court opinion, Smith v. State, 412 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), acknowledges conflict with Drayton v. State, 372 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and Williams V. State, 377 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980). The question is whether or not a person may be co…
-
Rashawn Clark v. State, 236 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
State v. Forrer, 455 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…e or a videotape documenting his refusal. Petitioner filed an appeal to the circuit court and Respondent cross appealed. The circuit court ruled that it was bound to follow State v. Ducksworth, 408 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) and Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) and exclude any evidence of such refusal. The circuit court therefore reversed the county court’s order which had allowed in some of the evidence. Based upon South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (…
Authorities Cited
- Sambrine v. State, 386 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1980)
- Brown v. State, 371 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Duke, 378 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Ducksworth, 408 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Brown, 386 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1980)