Court Opinion

ID: 9735974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:38:16.674057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.158665
License: Public Domain

*391McAULIFFE, Judge,
dissenting.
My quarrel is with Part 11(C) of the Court’s opinion and with the result.
The Court today holds invalid the express determination of the General Assembly that evidence of a driver’s refusal to take a chemical test for intoxication should be admissible in a prosecution for violation of § 21-902 of the Transportation Article of the Maryland Code. The Court does not invalidate the legislation on a constitutional basis, and appropriately so in view of the Supreme Court’s holding that admission of evidence regarding refusal does not offend the Federal Constitution. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (not fundamentally unfair for South Dakota to use refusal to take the test as evidence of guilt). Rather, the Court grounds its decision on the belief that refusal to take the test cannot be relevant if the defendant agrees not to mention or argue the absence of test results.
I disagree, because I believe the legislature validly could have assumed that: 1) jurors are generally aware that persons stopped on reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol are given chemical tests for intoxication; 2) jurors are likely to draw an inference unfavorable to the State when the State fails to introduce evidence of chemical test results, irrespective of whether that point is argued; and, 3) permitting the jurors to know that test results are not available because the defendant exercised his right to refuse to take the test, while not permitting the jurors to draw any inference from that fact, will have the effect of “creating a level playing field,” i.e., removing the availability of inferences favorable or unfavorable to the State which might otherwise arise from the jurors’ knowledge of the existence of chemical test laws.
All jurors are residents of this State, and I think it is safe to say most jurors are licensed drivers. Every person who has applied for a driver’s license in this State in recent *392years has been informed of Maryland’s “implied consent” law, by this notice prominently printed on the application form:
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO APPLICANT — IMPLIED CONSENT
Any person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a highway or on any private property that is used by the public in general in this State is deemed to have consented to take a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of his blood if he should be detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while intoxicated or while under the influence of alcohol.
If misapprehension exists in the mind of the average juror today concerning chemical tests for intoxication, I would suggest it is the mistaken belief that a suspect has no right to refuse the test. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that jurors are apt to speculate about the absence of chemical test results when a defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol.
Ordinarily, when a court seeks to determine whether a rational basis exists to support a legislative action, the court will consider all of the possible facts that the legislature might reasonably have found to exist, without the necessity of finding that the legislature actually considered those facts. Here, however, we know that the legislature considered at least one basis upon which I suggest it ultimately may have acted. In the Summary of Committee Report prepared for the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee for Senate Bill 85, by which this amendment was accomplished, the following statement appears:
The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services points out that during jury trials for alcohol-related offenses, when the State fails to introduce the results of a chemical test, members of the jury feel that the State is withholding the results because they were too low. This bill would end that perception. Sen*393ate Bill 85 would improve the enforcement of Maryland’s transportation laws.
Equally likely, I suggest, is the possibility that jurors faced with the unexplained absence of test results will conclude that the police improperly refused to offer a test to the accused.
The majority opines that “the Legislature recognized that ... the refusal [to take the chemical test] was not material or relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence.” Majority opinion at 386. Again, I disagree. The Supreme Court recognized, in South Dakota v. Neville, that the refusal to submit to a chemical test is a fact having evidentiary value that may be used against a defendant.1 I think it is clear that a defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test may give rise to an inference of consciousness of guilt, which may properly be used against the defendant. I think it is also clear that the legislature understood this, but simply made the decision to prohibit the State from using an otherwise admissible inference.
At the same time, however, the legislature did not wish to confer a further benefit on the defendant who refused a test by having the jury draw an unwarranted inference that the State was withholding important evidence. Thus, the legislature amended the statute to allow the trier of fact to be told why test results were not produced, but prohibited the use of that information as a foundation for any inference. In my judgment, the legislature had a rational basis for amending the statute in the manner it did, and its action should be upheld. Judges Chasanow and Smith join in this opinion.

. The defendant in Neville did not argue that the evidence of his failure to submit to the test lacked evidentiary value. To the contrary, he argued that such evidence was incriminating, and he sought relief through his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to take the test after an officer has lawfully requested it is not an act coerced by the officer, and thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. 459 U.S. at 564, 103 S.Ct. at 922.