Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Kinney

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 22, 2011No. 2009-265Published

1Concurrence

Johnson, J.,

¶ 14. concurring. I agree that, given these circumstances, the admission of the officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s refusal to submit to the preliminary breath test (PBT) was harmless. I write separately to emphasize my belief, that the trial court committed error.1 I would hold that 23 V.S.A. § 1203(f), the statutory section governing preliminary breath alcohol screening tests, prohibits the introduction of PBT refusal evidence.

¶ 15. The trial court, however, relied on our decision in State v. Blouin to rule that defendant’s refusal was admissible. 168 Vt. 119, 716 A.2d 826…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Delta Psi Fraternity v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  3. State v. McGuiganSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  4. CRUSSELLE v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
  5. People v. BrooksAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API