 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Marquez8/5/2004
lice do not have a constitutional duty to perform any particular tests. (Accord, Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51, 59.) The Seaton court noted that the unperformed tests could either exculpate or further incriminate the defendant and held: "When the state fails to preserve evidence 'of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant,' there is no due process violation unless the defendant can show the state destroyed the evidence in bad faith to prevent the defendant from using it for exculpatory purposes. [Citation.]" (People v. Seaton, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp 656-657, quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 337-338.) There was no evidence that Deputy Holguin acted in bad faith in refusing defendant's request for a blood test in this case. Nor was there any indication that the blood test could have exonerated defendant. Hence, no due process principles warranted exclusion of defendant's refusal to take a urine test.
The judgment is affirmed.
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.
|
|