People v. Smith, 18 N.Y.3d 544 (2012)
Evidence of a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol content is inadmissible at trial unless the driver was clearly warned that their conduct would be interpreted as a refusal, especially when the driver has requested to speak with an attorney.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired after the trial court admitted evidence that he refused to take a chemical breath test. Defendant argued he was waiting to speak with his attorney and did not explicitly refuse. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the refusal evidence was improperly admitted because the troopers, after initially granting his request to contact an attorney, did not clearly inform him that his continued insistence on waiting for his attorney would be deemed a refusal. The Court emphasized the need for clear warnings before admitting refusal evidence to show consciousness of guilt.
Facts
On March 28, 2007, state troopers stopped Defendant for a window tint violation. Smelling alcohol, they asked him to exit the vehicle and administered field sobriety tests, which he failed. Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and given Miranda warnings, as well as chemical test warnings under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f). He stated he understood but wanted to speak to his lawyer before deciding whether to take the test. At the state police barracks, he was given the warnings twice more, and each time he indicated he wished to telephone his attorney. After a half-hour wait, troopers interpreted his continued request as a refusal and recorded it.
Procedural History
At a pretrial hearing, Defendant moved to preclude evidence of his refusal, arguing he never explicitly refused but requested to contact his attorney. The Town Court denied the motion. He was acquitted of driving while intoxicated but convicted of the lesser offense of driving while ability impaired. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed.
Issue(s)
- Whether evidence of a defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test is admissible when the defendant requested to speak with an attorney and was not clearly informed that further insistence on waiting for the attorney would be deemed a refusal.
Holding
- No, because a reasonable motorist in Defendant’s position would not have understood that his continued request to speak to an attorney would be interpreted as a binding refusal to submit to a chemical test; therefore, Defendant was not adequately warned that his conduct would constitute a refusal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court recognized that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f) allows for the admission of refusal evidence, but only if the defendant was clearly warned of the consequences of refusal. While there’s no absolute right to refuse the test until consulting an attorney (citing People v. Gursey, 22 NY2d 224 (1968)), police cannot unjustifiably prevent access to counsel if it doesn’t unduly interfere with the matter at hand.
The Court distinguished this case from situations where a defendant actively frustrates the testing process. Here, the troopers initially granted the request to contact counsel and allowed a significant waiting period. Because the troopers did not explicitly state that the time for deliberation had expired and that his response would then be deemed a refusal, the Defendant was not adequately warned. “Since a reasonable motorist in defendant’s position would not have understood that, unlike the prior encounters, the further request to speak to an attorney would be interpreted by the troopers as a binding refusal to submit to a chemical test, defendant was not adequately warned that his conduct would constitute a refusal.”
The Court rejected the argument that this holding would require a “litany of additional warnings,” clarifying that police need only show that the defendant declined the test despite being clearly warned of the consequences. The court cited People v. O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270 (1991), approving of an admonition that the insistence of waiting for an attorney would be interpreted as a refusal.
Finally, the Court found the error was not harmless, as the trial court, acting as the finder of fact, relied on the consciousness of guilt evidence in its decision. “Needless to say, refusal evidence is probative of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt only if the defendant actually declined to take the test.”