Opinion ID: 885534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the Municipal Court abuse its discretion by prohibiting Robertson from challenging the reliability of the breathalyzer machine as a basis for his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test?

Text: ¶ 37 As explained above, the District Court did not rule on this issue. With this issue fully discussed and briefed by both parties, we will review the Municipal Court's evidentiary ruling to determine whether the court abused its discretion. See Fenton, ¶ 11. ¶ 38 Robertson argues that the Municipal Court abused its discretion, and therefore committed reversible error, when it refused to permit him to challenge at trial the reliability of the breathalyzer machine involved in this matter. A generous translation of his argument is that he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test based on his genuine concern that the machine was unreliable. Thus, rather than take more than one breathalyzer test to show inconsistent results, Robertson chose not to take even one test on principle. ¶ 39 The court accordingly refused to accept rebuttal evidence pertaining to the particular breathalyzer machine's reliability. The court reasoned that although Robertson's refusal was offered into evidence, there was no test given and therefore no unreliable test results to challenge. ¶ 40 We conclude that Robertson's argument is without merit. Namely, Robertson failed to support his assertions on this issue with citations to any authority. We have made it clear on numerous occasions that we will decline to address an issue when an appellant fails to cite to supporting authority. See, e.g., Rieman v. Anderson (1997), 282 Mont. 139, 147, 935 P.2d 1122, 1126-27 (citations omitted). Further, the reason for this omission of authority is patently clear. The law in Montana is that evidence of a person's refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test is admissible, in accordance with § 61-8-404(2), MCA. See City of Missoula v. Forest (1989), 236 Mont. 129, 133-34, 769 P.2d 699, 701-702; State v. Jackson (1983), 206 Mont. 338, 348, 672 P.2d 255, 260 (concluding that Montana's constitutional guaranty against self-incrimination afforded no greater protection than the federal constitution). In Jackson and subsequent decisions we have consistently held that the results of a breathalyzer test, as well as a defendant's refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test, are communications not protected by the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution or Article II, Section 25, of the Montana Constitution. ¶ 41 Aside from the foregoing, Robertson did not even take the breathalyzer test in question, and therefore had no legitimate grounds to challenge whether the machine in question, the Intoxilizer 5000, produces reliable results. This is not to say that the inference drawn from a defendant's refusal to take a breathalyzer test cannot be challenged at trial. See, e.g., State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix (App.1978), 119 Ariz. 142, 579 P.2d 1112 (failure to take test was due to defendant's asthma). Robertson's ploy here, however, makes no sense in terms of relevancy under the facts of this case, and cannot be supported by any relevant authority. ¶ 42 Therefore, the Municipal Court, in its discretion, would not permit Robertson to introduce evidence challenging the breathalyzer machine's reliability. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion.