Court Opinion

ID: 9565688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:25:53.281287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:49.749726
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice:
(Concurring As To Statements Of Law, But Dissenting As To Their Application To The Facts)
The question as to any confusion on the part of this plaintiff is injected into this case by the plaintiff himself; and by those who essay to defend his contention. The findings of the trial court are so admirably clear and so commendably succinct that they should be susceptible of no confusion or misunderstanding. They recite very simply and plainly that:
1. The testimony shows that the officer had grounds to arrest the petitioner.
2. That the petitioner was properly requested to take a chemical test pursuant to Utah Code Annotated, 41-6-44.10 (1953) as amended.
3. That the petitioner did refuse to submit to the test .
A reading of the record reveals with equal clarity that there is clear and unequivocal evidence to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions. I quote the following testimony of Officer James Smith:
REFUSAL TO TAKE TEST
A My second question was if Mr. Holman would submit to a chemical test.
Q What did he say there?
A His response was, and 1 quote, “I refuse."
Q And did you go on to explain to him the Implied Consent Statute?
A Yes, I did.
Q How did you do that?
A On the alcohol influence report form ... it has the complete Implied Consent Law on the reverse page. I read this completely to him. Also, I read this completely to him prior to asking him if he would submit to a test.
Q And after these two readings, what was his response?
A He refused.
* * * * * *
Q (By Mr. Hale) After reading that, did you request that he take a chemical test?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did you say in order to make that request?
A I said, “Mr. Holman, what is your response to my request that you submit to a chemical test?”
Q What was his response?
A “I refuse."
Q And then how did you respond to his refusal? What did you say?
A I explained in my own words what possibly could happen if he refused.
* * * * * sfc
A I explained to Mr. Holman . that Implied Consent Law meant that when he obtained his Utah Driver’s License and he drove on . public roads in the State of Utah, if he was at any time requested to submit to a chemical test with probable cause from a police officer, that he should submit to that test. If he refused that test without reasonable grounds, that I would report to . the Driver’s License Division . . . . A hearing would be set. . And if the hearing officer felt that he was given the right to take that test but yet he refused ... his driver’s license could be revoked for one year.
******
Q After this conversation did you transport him to the jail?
A Yes, I did.
******
*1336Q Upon arrival at the jail, did you ask him again to submit to a test?
A Yes, I did.
Q Which test did you request?
A The breath test.
Q What was his response to your request?
A He wouldn't take it. I can't remember his exact response at that time.
Q Did you again warn him of the consequences of his refusal?
A Yes, I did. [All emphasis herein added.]
In regard to the question of plaintiff having an attorney at that time: the main opinion correctly states that he has no such right. Moreover, it should be stated that, in any event, the evidence is that he made no such request. It is neither necessary nor desirable to extend this dissent by setting forth in detail the plaintiff’s testimony. The best that can be said for his version of what was done, and for his claim of confusion, is that in some particulars it created a conflict with the testimony of Officer Smith. It is both the duty and the prerogative of the trial judge to determine the competency of witnesses and to judge their credibility. If that prerogative is respected, there is no basis whatsoever for concluding that the plaintiff was confused, either about the request to take the blood test, or about his refusal to do so. Inasmuch as the trial court’s findings as to the refusal are based on competent and credible evidence, this Court should not disturb them.1
In my view, both the findings and judgment rest upon a firm foundation of the law and the evidence, and they should be affirmed.

. Gassman v. Dorius, Utah, 543 P.2d 197 (1975).