Legal Opinion

City of Westerville v. Cunningham

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1968No. 41377PublishedCited by 149 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taft, 0. J.

The first ground given by the Court of Appeals opinion (12 Ohio App. 2d 34, 230 N. E. 2d 671) for its decision is that the evidence of defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test for intoxication would have no probative value. Some courts have so held (annotation, 87 A. L. R. 2d 370, at 386) and stated that the refusal of an accused to take such a test may have no relation to the question of his guilt or innocence. State v. McCarthy (1960), 259 Minn. 24, 104 N. W. 2d 673, 87 A. L. R. 2d 360; Engler v. State (1957 Okla. Cr.), 316 P. 2d 625.

Such a refusal may sometimes have no such…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

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

3Cited by149 opinions

  1. South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Campbell v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State v. HochhauslerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. VegaOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1979

144 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