SOUTH DAKOTA

v.

NEVILLE

Citator

Cited By

• Pardo v. State, 429 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …ber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Even the admission into evidence of a refusal to submit to such a test does not violate a defendant’s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. South Dakota v. Neville, 456 U.S. 971, 102 S.Ct. 2232, 72 L.Ed.2d 844 (1983). This leads us to the conclusion that, subject to all other and usual qualifications and limitations relating to competency, relevancy and weight, the result of blood alcohol tests is admissible in civil and…
• United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983)
  …utor’s remark was equivocal, nonprejudicial, and that the court failed to apply Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), a case that the Court of Appeals had, in fact, failed to cite.3 The petition for rehearing was denied. We granted certiorari, 456 U. S. 971 (1982). We reverse. II The opinion of the Court of Appeals does not make entirely clear its basis for reversing the convictions in this gruesome case. Its cursory treatment of the harmless-error question and its focus on the failure generally of p…
• South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983)
  …2d 863, 864 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 881 (1974)).6 Since other jurisdictions have found no Fifth Amendment violation from the admission of evidence of refusal to submit to blood-alcohol tests,7 we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 456 U. S. 971 (1982). HH hH The situation underlying this case — that of the drunk driver — occurs with tragic frequency on our Nation’s highways. The carnage caused by drunk drivers is well documented and needs no detailed recitation here. This Court, although…