Opinion ID: 1592156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: refusal to submit to a chemical test

Text: Any law enforcement officer ... may require any person arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving ... a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor to submit to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or urine ... when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving ... a motor vehicle upon a public highway in this state while under the influence of alcoholic liquor. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.08(2) (Reissue 1988). Subsection (4) of § 39-669.08 provides in substance that any person who refuses to submit to a chemical blood, breath, or urine test shall be guilty of a crime and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished in the same manner as under § 39-669.07. Green contends that the evidence shows that because he claimed he did not understand that he was being requested to submit to a chemical test, Officer Thalken never requested that he submit to the test. Therefore, Green concludes, the evidence against him was insufficient to show that he refused to submit to a chemical test. A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs within the meaning of the implied consent law when the licensee, after being asked to submit to a test, so conducts himself as to justify a reasonable person in the requesting officer's position in believing that the licensee understood that he was being asked to submit to a test and manifested an unwillingness to take it. [Citations omitted.] State v. Beerbohm, 229 Neb. 439, 445, 427 N.W.2d 75, 79 (1988). As this court explained in Clontz v. Jensen, 227 Neb. 191, 196, 416 N.W.2d 577, 580 (1987): The only understanding required by the licensee is that he has been asked to take a test. It is not a defense that he does not understand the consequences of a refusal or is not able to make a reasoned judgment as to what course of action to take. As a matter of fact, Green is incorrect. Officer Thalken's testimony shows that he read the implied consent form to Green and that Green was informed that he was required to submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath, or urine to determine the alcoholic content. Even assuming that Green did not hear the officer's request to submit to the test, acceptance of Green's argument would require this court to ignore common sense and permit absurdity to rule the day. One cannot evade the effect of the law simply by repeatedly screaming that he or she does not understand. In fact, Green's efforts during the reading of the form lead to just the opposite conclusion. The jury could reasonably have inferred that by attempting to drown out the reading of the implied consent form, Green hoped to escape taking the test and avoid the reach of §§ 39-669.07 and 39-669.08. This inference presupposes that Green knew exactly what he was doing and understood what was being asked of him. The evidence was sufficient to show that Green conducted himself in such a manner as to justify a reasonable person in Officer Thalken's position in believing that Green understood that he was being asked to submit to a chemical test and manifested an unwillingness to take it. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Green refused to submit to a chemical test for alcohol content.