 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Marquez8/5/2004
, at that time Deputy Holguin had no safe way to secure the phencyclidine. Subsequent testing of the vial's contents revealed it contained 1.25 milliliters of a liquid containing phencyclidine.
Defendant argues the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress testimony that he refused to submit to a urine test. During the preliminary hearing, Deputy Holguin testified that defendant had been given a breath test. The breath test result indicated defendant had no alcohol in his blood. Defendant requested a blood test. Deputy Holguin concluded that it would be dangerous to take defendant to a hospital. This was because defendant was under the influence of phencyclidine. As a result, Deputy Holguin offered defendant the opportunity to take a urine test. Both blood and urine tests accurately determine the presence of drugs in an individual's system. Defendant did not answer Deputy Holguin's questions regarding the urine test.
Defendant's subsequent motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 was based on his contention that there was insufficient evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing for him to have been held to answer on count 2, misdemeanor driving under the influence. Defendant argued: the denial of his blood test request was a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law because it prevented him from obtaining evidence necessary to his defense; Deputy Holguin lacked the expertise to determine whether any person was under the influence of phencyclidine; and the prosecution was precluded from relying on his refusal to take a urine test as being demonstrative of consciousness of guilt.
The trial court denied the Penal Code section 995 motion but proceeded to address the suppression of evidence issue on the theory that defendant had made a common law motion to suppress. Defendant argued Deputy Holguin's observations should have been suppressed. The trial court disagreed tentatively ruling: "The breath test is out.... [ ] ... [ ][T]he officer's reasons for not giving him a blood test, I don't think are relevant, and I wouldn't allow them in. So, the only fact that the jury is going to hear is that he requested a blood test and the police officer did not give it to him." The trial court further held that evidence of defendant's refusal to take a urine test was admissible.
Here, defendant argues that he was denied due process of law when the trial court refused to suppress evidence that he refused to submit to a urine test. In reviewing a trial court's ruling denying a suppression motion, we defer to the trial court's factual findings, where supported by substantial evidence, and view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 969; People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 182.)
*3 The Attorney General argues that defendant waived the due process issue on appeal by failing to raise it below. We agree. As noted previously, what was deemed to be defendant's "common law motion to suppress" was based on four premises: (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to find he should be held to answer; (2) the refusal to give him a blood test as requested resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to due process; (3) Deputy Holguin lacked the expertise to determine phencyclidine intoxication; and (4) the prosecution should be precluded from arguing that his refusal to take a urine test demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. Defendant's written motion did not assert testimony concerning his refusal to take the urine test would be violative of his due process rights. Further, the Attorney General argues that defendant did not object to eithe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|