Opinion ID: 2124940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rejected Instruction on Defendant's Right to Refuse a Blood Test

Text: In addition to refusing the requested instruction on Defendant's failure to testify the trial judge also refused Defendant's requested instruction on his right not to take a blood test. Although the issue is somewhat mooted by our foregoing treatment of the erroneous admission of testimony on Oswald's twice refusing the blood test, we think it best to make a brief observation. In State v. Wimpsett, supra , this Court quoted with approval the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Carnagy, 1898, 106 Iowa 483, 76 N.W. 805: `The instruction requested contained a correct statement of the law, and the defendant had the right to have it given. It related to a special feature of the case, upon which the giving of instructions was discretionary if not demanded, but upon which the law should have been stated when requested by the accused, who had brought himself within its provisions.' Defendant's proposed instruction No. 12 is not an incorrect statement of the law, although it could well be enhanced by further elaboration. In circumstances other than those before us we anticipate that counsel might have a right to have similar instruction given the jury, but we leave any decision on that question to turn on the facts of the case while keeping in mind the quote from Carnagy. In closing we note that we are in agreement with Mr. Chief Justice Traynor when he observed that [i]n a day when excessive loss of life and property is caused by inebriated drivers, an imperative need exists for a fair, efficient, and accurate system of detection, enforcement and, hence, prevention. People v. Sudduth, 1966, 65 Cal.2d 543, 55 Cal.Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401. Nevertheless, our system of justice demands that to achieve these ends courts cannot dispense with the fundamentals of fairness for the accused. Since, for the reasons stated, we have found that Jerauld Ray Oswald received less than a fair trial the decision of the circuit court is reversed and its judgment vacated. DUNN, C. J., and WOLLMAN and COLER, JJ., concur.