Case Title: State v. Neville

Citation: 312 N.W.2d 723

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
312 N.W.2d 723 (1981) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mason Henry NEVILLE, Defendant and Appellee. No. 13260. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Argued September 28, 1981. Decided December 2, 1981. *724 Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellant; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief. David R. Gienapp of Arneson, Issenhuth & Gienapp, Madison, for defendant and appellee. DUNN, Justice. The State appeals from an order of the circuit court suppressing evidence of defendant Mason Henry Neville's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. We affirm. Neville was arrested for driving while intoxicated on July 19, 1980, after he had drawn the attention of two Madison, South Dakota police officers by failing to stop for a stop sign. Neville was given two field sobriety tests and was then arrested. After advising him of his Miranda rights, the arresting officer asked Neville to submit to a blood alcohol test and warned him that his failure or refusal to submit to the test may result in the revocation of his driver's license. Neville refused to submit to the blood test, and subsequently made a motion to suppress any and all evidence of his refusal. At the suppression hearing, prosecution witnesses testified to his refusal and to his statement "I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test." The circuit court ordered the evidence of Neville's refusal to submit to the blood alcohol test suppressed, finding that SDCL 32-23-10.1 was unconstitutional; that the arresting officers failed to advise Neville that the refusal evidence could be used against him at trial; and that the refusal was irrelevant to the issues before the court. The statute in question, SDCL 32-23-10.1, provides that: Prior to the enactment of this statute in 1980, this court held that SDCL 32-23-10 conferred on a defendant a statutory right to refuse to submit to an alcohol analysis test and that evidence of a defendant's refusal would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding. State v. Oswald, 90 S.D. 342, 241 N.W.2d 566 (1976); State v. Buckingham, 90 S.D. 198, 240 N.W.2d 84 (1976). In State v. Oswald, supra, we stated: "Certainly it is unfair to create by statute a right not to submit to a chemical test and to allow the accused to exercise that right and then in open court before a jury to permit testimony concerning that refusal which can all too easily work in the minds of the jury members to the prejudice of the defendant." 90 S.D. at 346, 241 N.W.2d at 569. To reach this conclusion, we relied on State v. Buckingham, supra, wherein we stated: "Implicit in our implied consent statute, however, is the right to refuse to submit to a test and, a fortiori, the requirement that a choice be made between submitting to the test or suffering the consequences of such refusal." 90 S.D. at 204, 240 N.W.2d at 87. At the time Oswald and Buckingham were decided by this court the applicable statute, while providing that the individual had a right to refuse to take the test, *725 did not expressly state that such a refusal would be admissible in evidence in a criminal proceeding as does SDCL 32-23-10.1. Therefore, the question before us today is whether SDCL 32-23-10.1 is a violation of Neville's federal and state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. U.S. Const.Amend. V; S.D.Const. art. VI, § 9. We find that it is. All presumptions are in favor of the constitutionality of a statute until the contrary is shown beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brown, 296 N.W.2d 501 (S.D.1980); Crowley v. State, 268 N.W.2d 616 (S.D.1978); State v. Strong, 90 S.D. 652, 245 N.W.2d 277 (1976). This presumption results in a heavy burden being placed on the assailant. State v. Brown, supra; State Theatre Co. v. Smith, 276 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1979). In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that withdrawal of blood from a defendant for chemical analysis, although compelled, does not constitute evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. The Court further held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the procedure. It can be implied that a defendant does not have a federal constitutional right to refuse to take a blood test. The Supreme Court, however, expressly declined in Schmerber to decide the question now before us. In Schmerber the petitioner had refused a police request that he take a breath test for alcohol content. Evidence of his refusal was admitted at trial without objection. He contended on appeal that the introduction of evidence relating to his refusal to submit to the breath test was a denial of his privilege against self-incrimination. The Court did not reach this question, since petitioner failed to object to the introduction of the evidence at trial. However, it did indicate in a footnote that incriminating evidence resulting from the refusal to submit to an alcohol test may be "an unavoidable by-product of the compulsion to take the test .... If it wishes to compel persons to submit to such attempts to discover evidence, the State may have to forgo the advantage of any testimonial products of administering the testproducts which would fall within the privilege." The Court then stated that "general Fifth Amendment principles" would be applicable to the introduction of refusal evidence and comments made by the prosecutor in closing argument upon his refusal. 384 U.S. at 765-66 n. 9, 86 S. Ct. at 1833, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 916-17 (emphasis in original). In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the Court summarized its discussion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as follows: 384 U.S. at 460, 86 S. Ct. at 1620, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 715 (citations omitted). The Court reaffirmed this statement in Schmerber noting that "the protection of the privilege reaches an accused's communications, whatever form they might take, and the compulsion of responses which are also communications[.]" The Court recognized, however, that "the privilege is a bar against compelling `communications' or `testimony,' but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of `real or physical evidence' does not violate it." 384 U.S. at 763-64, 86 S. Ct. at 1832, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 916. To determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to refusal evidence, this court must first examine whether a defendant's refusal to take a chemical analysis test is a communicative act involving that person's testimonial capacities or if it is real or physical evidence which does not fall within the privilege. Evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test is relevant only *726 because it infers that defendant refused to take the blood test because of his fear as to whether he would pass it. Dudley v. State, 548 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). A defendant's silence or refusal to submit to a requested blood test is a tacit or overt expression and communication of defendant's thoughts. Dudley v. State, supra. To this extent the evidence may be characterized as "communicative or testimonial" rather than "real or physical" evidence that simply describes an existing physical characteristic. People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 (1978); Gay v. City of Orlando, 202 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956, 88 S. Ct. 1052, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1968). The inference of inability to pass the blood test is not similar to circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt such as escape from custody, false alibi, flight or suppression of evidence as was held by the California Supreme Court in People v. Sudduth, 65 Cal. 2d 543, 55 Cal. Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401 (1966). A defendant is not exercising a statutory right in those instances, whereas here there is an absolute right under South Dakota law to refuse to submit to the blood test. SDCL 32-23-10; State v. Oswald, supra; State v. Buckingham, supra. Thus, a defendant's actions, rather than being evidence of consciousness of guilt, may be the result of the exercise of his statutory right to refuse the test. A defendant's exercise of his statutory right to refuse to submit to the blood test cannot be used against him in the prosecution's case in chief. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976); Dudley v. State, supra (P. J. Onion, concurring). Second, this court must determine whether this testimonial evidence was compelled for purposes of applying the Fifth Amendment standard. We agree with the rationale of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 212 N.W.2d 863, 864 (1973), wherein it stated: Quoting from Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Taking of Body Evidence, 78 Yale L.J. 1074, 1084 (1969) (emphasis in original). See also People v. Rodriguez, 80 Misc.2d 1060, 364 N.Y.S.2d 786 (1975). We hold that evidence of an accused's refusal to take a blood test violates the federal and state privilege against self-incrimination and therefore SDCL 32-23-10.1 is unconstitutional.[*] To the extent that our decision in State v. Maher, 272 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1978) expresses views contrary to those expressed herein with respect to the finding that defendant's refusal to submit to the test was non-testimonial evidence and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment, we overrule that decision. *727 The State also contends that Neville's statement "I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test", made after his arrest and after being advised of his Miranda rights to the police officers, is admissible into evidence. This incriminating statement is "an unavoidable by-product of the compulsion to take the test" and the United States Supreme Court has held that "general Fifth Amendment principles ... would be applicable in these circumstances." Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. at 765-66 n. 9, 86 S. Ct. 1833, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 916-17. In Miranda v. Arizona, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a person subjected to custodial interrogation must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make can be used in evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The Court further acknowledged that a defendant may waive these rights, but only if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently will it render subsequent confessions admissible. This court has held that in making the determination with respect to whether there was a voluntary waiver of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation must be examined. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1979); State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1980). Custodial statements made by an intoxicated defendant are not per se involuntary, but rather this is one of the circumstances to be considered by the trial judge in his determination of voluntariness. U. S. v. Brown, 535 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1976). The trial judge must make the decision regarding voluntariness of the statement in the first instance. State v. Cowell, supra; State v. Stumes, 90 S.D. 382, 241 N.W.2d 587 (1976); State v. Adkins, 88 S.D. 571, 225 N.W.2d 598 (1975). This matter arose on a motion to suppress which required a finding of voluntariness by the trial judge in accordance with State v. Stumes, supra, with findings of fact and conclusions of law entered. There was no question of hearing the question of voluntariness in the presence of the jury as in State v. Lufkins, 309 N.W.2d 331 (S.D.1981). In the case before us, the circuit court did not enter findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of Neville's statement. Therefore, we remand for a finding on this issue. In light of our holding that SDCL 32-23-10.1 is unconstitutional as a denial of Neville's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal or deem them to be without merit. We affirm the order of the circuit court suppressing the admission of refusal evidence and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this holding with regard to the suppression of Neville's statement. MORGAN, HENDERSON and FOSHEIM, JJ., concur. WOLLMAN, C. J., dissents. WOLLMAN, Chief Justice (dissenting). Because I am persuaded by the logic of those decisions holding that admission of the fact of a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication is not violative of the privilege against self-incrimination, I cannot agree that SDCL 32-23-10.1 is unconstitutional. The seminal case for upholding the introduction of such evidence is People v. Ellis, 65 Cal. 2d 529, 55 Cal. Rptr. 385, 421 P.2d 393 (1966). In holding that introduction of evidence of a defendant's refusal to participate in a voice identification test did not constitute a violation of the defendant's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, Chief Justice Traynor wrote: 55 Cal. Rptr. 385, 386-87, 421 P.2d 393, 394-95, 397-98 (citations omitted, footnotes omitted). In a companion case decided the same day, the California Supreme Court applied the reasoning in the Ellis case in holding that there was no constitutional bar to evidence of and comment on a defendant's refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for intoxication. People v. Sudduth, 65 Cal. 2d 543, 55 Cal. Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401 (1967). Other jurisdictions that have followed the reasoning in the Ellis and Sudduth cases include Alabama (Hill v. State, 366 So. 2d 318 (Ala.1979)); Arizona (Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971)); Nebraska (State v. Meints, 189 Neb. 264, 202 N.W.2d 202 (1972)); New York (People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 (1978), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 891, 100 S. Ct. 197, 62 L. Ed. 2d 127 (1979)); Ohio (City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St.2d 121, 239 N.E.2d 40 (1968)); and Pennsylvania (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 229 Pa.Super. 131, 324 A.2d 441 (1974)). See also State v. Holt, 261 Iowa 1089, 156 N.W.2d 884 (1968). I would follow these decisions and hold that the trial court erred in ruling that SDCL 32-23-10.1 is unconstitutional. As an alternative holding, I would follow the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Vermont as expressed in the case of State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 385 A.2d 1085 (1978): 385 A.2d at 1088 (citation omitted). In distinguishing earlier decisions that had held that evidence of refusal to take a *729 blood test could not be used against a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the Vermont Court pointed out that the state legislature had amended the state's implied consent statute to provide for the admission in evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication: 385 A.2d at 1088. The situation that faced the Supreme Court of Vermont parallels the situation in this state. As pointed out in the majority opinion, we held in State v. Oswald, 90 S.D. 342, 241 N.W.2d 566 (1976), that: 90 S.D. at 348, 241 N.W.2d at 570. As we said in State v. Buckingham, 90 S.D. 198, 204, 240 N.W.2d 84, 87 (1976), "Implicit in our implied consent statute, however, is the right to refuse to submit to a test and, a fortiori, the requirement that a choice be made between submitting to the test or suffering the consequences of such refusal." One of the consequences of such refusal is to make the fact of such refusal admissible in evidence at the subsequent trial.[*] To that extent, then, there is no "absolute right" under state law to refuse to submit to a chemical test, if by that term it is argued that no adverse consequences may flow from the exercise of such right. Indeed, in view of the fact that one of the consequences of the refusal to submit to a chemical test is the revocation of one's driver's license, it is a contradiction in terms to characterize the right of refusal as "absolute." Accordingly, it is hardly realistic to say that a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test may be the exercise of his statutory right to refuse the test rather than the manifestation of consciousness of guilt. While the former may in a rare case be true, the latter is the far more likely situation. I would adhere to the views expressed in State v. Maher, 272 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1978), and hold that the introduction of evidence of refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication does not violate a defendant's rights under either the United States Constitution or the South Dakota Constitution. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case to circuit court for trial. [*] In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 761-62 n. 6, 86 S. Ct. at 1831-32, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 914, the United States Supreme Court stated (citations omitted, [] in original): Many state constitutions, including those of most of the original Colonies, phrase the privilege in terms of compelling a person to give `evidence' against himself. But our decision cannot turn on the Fifth Amendment's use of the word `witness.' `[A]s the manifest purpose of the constitutional provisions, both of the States and of the United States, is to prohibit the compelling of testimony of a self-incriminating kind from a party or a witness, the liberal construction which must be placed upon constitutional provisions for the protection of personal rights would seem to require that the constitutional guaranties, however differently worded, should have as far as possible the same interpretation....' This footnote indicates that Schmerber was decided in light of the more liberal definition of "evidence" as used in our state constitution. Since the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is broad enough to exclude this evidence, there is no need to draw a distinction at this time between S.D.Const. art. VI, § 9 and the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. [*] As a counterpart of SDCL 32-23-10.1, the legislature, by 1980 S.D.Sess.Laws ch. 230, § 2 (SDCL 19-13-28.1), provided that: Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19-13-28, when a person stands trial for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as provided under § 32-23-1, and that person has refused chemical analysis, as provided in § 32-23-10, such refusal is admissible into evidence. Such person may not claim privilege against self-incrimination with regard to admission of refusal to submit to chemical analysis.