CRUSSELLE v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant's refusal to submit to preliminary alco-sensor test was \admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication and together with other evidence would support an inference that [defendant] was an impaired driver\ (quotation omitted)
• holding that defendant’s refusal to submit to preliminary alco-sensor test was “admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication and together with other evidence would support an inference that [defendant] was an impaired driver” (quotation omitted)
• “In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”
• “It is well settled that the permissible range of the state’s closing argument is very wide.”
• refusal to submit to alco-sensor test, field sobriety tests, and state-administered breath'test “is admissible asi circumstantial evidence of intoxication and together with other evidence . . . support[s] an inference that [the defendant] was am impaired driver”
• under statute in effect at that time

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).