Court Opinion

ID: 9584191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:19.266683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:02.280368
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
concurring. I concur with the majority opinion of Judge Evans and would like to make certain other comments in support of. this position.
Several compelling reasons urge that the question contained in the dissent of Judge Eberhardt (should evidence of failure to take the test be refused if the results, where it is made, are admissible?) be answered in the negative. In the first place, the foreign authority cited is contrary to the thrust of Georgia law; in the second, it is contrary to the Georgia Constitution; in the third, it would allow inadmissible evidence of other unlawful acts.
What is the purpose of admitting such, evidence? None at all except as a covert manner of informing the jury that the defendant, having refused the test, knew he was guilty and was unwilling to give evidence against himself. If the inference is correct, the Constitution protects him. But the inference may well be incorrect, since the results of blood, and breath tests administered by local authorities are by no-means 100% accurate and many people would refuse them for this reason alone.
The real question is, if the defendant refuse’s to take the breath test may he be forced to do so? Obviously not. One may not seize the defendant’s person and place him outside the window where the criminal was seen (Aiken v. State, 16 Ga. App. 848 (2) (86 SE 1076)) or seize his foot and place it-in the criminal’s track (Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 363 (1) (85 SE 97)) or force him to use his breath either to answer incriminating questions (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 *611(86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974) ), or to provide the police with, incriminating chemicals. Since he cannot he forced to take the test, and since- the only result of evidence that he refused to take it is to create the inference that if he bad taken, it the result would have- been positive, we allow evidence of no-test to substitute for evidence of positive-test, contrary to the basic- rule of criminal ¡justice,, which is that the defendant may indeed- stand mute, and the burden is on the State to prove him guilty.
Except for this inference, which is exactly the one the law says should not be drawn, the refusal to take the test is of no- probative value whatever. It is, however, under Code Ann. §, 68-1625.1 (b) an independent illegal act. carrying its. own- penalty — suspension of driver’s license-. On that issue and on that issue alone is testimony of refusal to take the test competent evidence.