Case Name: PEOPLE v. TERRIEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-11-20
Citations: 93 Mich. App. 802
Docket Number: Docket No. 78-5394
Parties: PEOPLE v TERRIEN
Judges: Before: Allen, P.J., and Bashara and Beasley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 93
Pages: 802–807

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v TERRIEN
Docket No. 78-5394.
Submitted October 4, 1979, at Marquette.
Decided November 20, 1979.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Paul J. Terrien was charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of impaired driving, Delta District Court, Dean J. Shipman, J. On appeal to Delta Circuit Court, the conviction was affirmed, Clair J. Hoehn, J. Defendant appeals by leave granted. On appeal, defendant claims that he had a statutory right which he exercised to refuse to take a Breathalyzer test at the time of his arrest and claims that he also had a right to have no mention made of the Breathalyzer test. According to defendant, an instruction before the trial began which tells the jurors that the case will not involve any testimony as it relates to a Breathalyzer test nor the results of the test and to draw no inferences either favorable or unfavorable to either party to the trial for lack of such testimony was fundamentally unfair to him and grounds for reversal of his conviction. Held:
The court’s instruction was neither unfair nor reversible error. It was an impartial statement cautioning the jury to ignore the matter of Breathalyzer tests and it cannot be presumed, without some further factual basis, that the jury disregarded the instruction.
Affirmed.
Beasley, J., dissents. He would hold that the court’s instruction does not serve the purpose for which it was given and that evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test is inadmissible because it calls the jury’s attention to the possibility that a chemical test may have been administered, that defendant failed the test and, thus, was intoxicated. This type of instruction, given over objection, is fundamentally unfair to the defendant and constitutes reversible error. He would reverse and remand for a new trial.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 830.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 746.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Evidence — Drunk Driving — Breathalyzer Test — Inferences.
A jury instruction in a prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol which tells the jurors that the case will not involve any testimony as it relates to a Breathalyzer test nor the results of the test and to draw no inferences either favorable or unfavorable to either party to the trial for lack of such testimony was neither unfair nor reversible error; the instruction was an impartial statement cautioning the jury to ignore the matter of Breathalyzer tests and it cannot be presumed, without some further factual basis, that the jury disregarded the instruction.
Dissent by Beasley, J.
2. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Evidence — Drunk Driving — Breathalyzer Test — Inferences.
A jury instruction in a prosecution for driving under the inñuence of alcohol which tells the jurors that the case will not involve any testimony as it relates to a Breathalyzer test nor the results of the test and to draw no inferences either favorable or unfavorable to either party to the trial for lack of such testimony does not serve the purpose for which it was given because it calls the jury’s attention to the possibility that a chemical test may have been administered and if a juror reaches the conclusion that a chemical test has been given then it would seem to follow that the juror would conclude that a defendant failed the test and, thus, was intoxicated; this type of instruction, given over objection, is fundamentally unfair to the defendant and constitutes reversible error.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Stephen L. Pence, Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service, Thomas C. Nelson, of counsel), for the people.
Davis & Olsen, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Allen, P.J., and Bashara and Beasley, JJ.

Opinion:
Bashara, J.
The majority adopts the factual findings of the dissenting opinion. However, it appears to us that the instruction in question was neither unfair nor reversible error.
We view the instruction as an impartial statement cautioning the jury to ignore the matter of Breathalyzer tests. Without some further factual basis, we do not presume that the jury disregarded the instruction. See People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561, 566; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), rev'd on other grounds, 406 Mich 926; 277 NW2d 506 (1979).
Affirmed.
Allen, P.J., concurred.