Main Menu

Nelson v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Sarah Brooks

In Nelson v. State, 512 P.3d 86 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that when the State fails to notify a person accused of driving under the influence of their right to an independent chemical test and no state-conducted test exists, the state must presume that a breath test would have yielded a result of .04 or less (not under the influence of intoxicating liquor). (Id. at 90–91). A driver was arrested for driving under the influence and when asked whether she would submit a breath test, she remained silent and no breath test was administered. (Id. at 88). The arresting officer did not notify the driver of her right to an independent chemical test, in violation of her due process rights. (Id.). At trial, the State did not dispute that the driver’s due process rights had been violated but argued that the proper remedy for violation was to presume that the independent test would have revealed a blood alcohol level below .08 percent, a level which provides no presumption as to whether the defendant was or was not under the influence of alcohol. (Id. at 88, 90–91). The district court agreed with the State, and at trial the driver was found guilty of driving under the influence. (Id. at 88). On appeal, the driver argued that the district court was required to presume that the result of an independent chemical test would have been below .04 percent. (Id. at 89). The court of appeals held that when there is no state-administered breath test and the state has violated a defendant’s due process right to an independent test, it must be presumed that the results of an independent test, had one been conducted, would have been favorable to the defendant. (Id. at 90). The court then held that a blood alcohol level of .08 was an insufficiently favorable presumption, and that trial court should have presumed that the driver’s independent breath test would have yielded a result of .04 percent or less. (Id. at 91). Vacating the lower court’s conviction, the court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial, holding that when the State fails to notify a person accused of driving under the influence of their right to an independent chemical test and no state-conducted test exists, the state must presume that a breath test would have yielded a result of .04 or less. (Id. at 90–91).

 

Nelson v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)

Sarah Brooks

In Nelson v. State, 512 P.3d 86 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that when the State fails to notify a person accused of driving under the influence of their right to an independent chemical test and no state-conducted test exists, the state must presume that a breath test would have yielded a result of .04 or less (not under the influence of intoxicating liquor). (Id. at 90–91). A driver was arrested for driving under the influence and when asked whether she would submit a breath test, she remained silent and no breath test was administered. (Id. at 88). The arresting officer did not notify the driver of her right to an independent chemical test, in violation of her due process rights. (Id.). At trial, the State did not dispute that the driver’s due process rights had been violated but argued that the proper remedy for violation was to presume that the independent test would have revealed a blood alcohol level below .08 percent, a level which provides no presumption as to whether the defendant was or was not under the influence of alcohol. (Id. at 88, 90–91). The district court agreed with the State, and at trial the driver was found guilty of driving under the influence. (Id. at 88). On appeal, the driver argued that the district court was required to presume that the result of an independent chemical test would have been below .04 percent. (Id. at 89). The court of appeals held that when there is no state-administered breath test and the state has violated a defendant’s due process right to an independent test, it must be presumed that the results of an independent test, had one been conducted, would have been favorable to the defendant. (Id. at 90). The court then held that a blood alcohol level of .08 was an insufficiently favorable presumption, and that trial court should have presumed that the driver’s independent breath test would have yielded a result of .04 percent or less. (Id. at 91). Vacating the lower court’s conviction, the court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial, holding that when the State fails to notify a person accused of driving under the influence of their right to an independent chemical test and no state-conducted test exists, the state must presume that a breath test would have yielded a result of .04 or less. (Id. at 90–91).