People v. Garriott

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the jury may infer the driver refused to submit to a breath test because he knew it would confirm he was under the influence
• stating that a defendant’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test was relevant in a driving under the influence case “because it implies that [the driver] believes he is intoxicated”
• refusal to submit to Breathalyzer test is relevant as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt
• refusal to submit to Breathalyzer test is relevant as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt
• refusal to submit to Breathalyzer test is relevant as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt
• refusal to submit to -5- Breathalyzer test is relevant as circumstantial evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).