 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moy v. State10/23/2002
ther could not or would not blow into the breathalyzer machine for a sufficient period of time so that the jailer could get a reading upon two attempts, and therefore McEntire was not entitled to another test of his choice; had the test been completed, the obligation of the officers would have been different; no additional test must be offered when no breathalyzer test is completed).
To the extent that appellant implies that he could not understand his rights and obligations due to intoxication, we disagree with any such assertion. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense in criminal prosecutions. White v. State, 290 Ark. 130, 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986). Voluntary intoxication has been specifically rejected as a defense with regard to refusal to submit to a chemical test. See Menard v. State, 16 Ark. App. 219, 699 S.W.2d 412 (1985) (holding that this is a general intent crime for which voluntary intoxication is no defense). The trial judge's finding of fact that appellant violated the implied consent statute is supported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Pittman and Bird, JJ., agree.
|