Court Opinion

ID: 9668359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:10:25.473327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.856630
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. I find State v. Jensen, 216 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Iowa 1974) and State v. Hall, 203 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 1973) to be controlling.
The supreme court said in both cases: “We think a rule would be anomalous indeed which would permit introduction of evidence of refusal to take a test when the test itself cannot be shown.”
In the case at bar, the blood test results are not admissible because the procedural requirements of section 321J.10 of The Code were not met.
I do not see any reason to say that it is permissible to show evidence of a refusal to take a blood test when the test itself *69cannot be shown in an implied consent situation but have a different rule in cases involving oral search warrant.
It appears to me to be equally “anomalous” to have a rule that permits introduction of the evidence of refusal to take a blood test when the blood test itself is not admissible in situations involving oral search warrants.