"The refusal to take the intoximeter test constitutes what might be termed a negative predicate which was productive of nothing more than sheer speculation, surmise, and innuendo"
How later courts described this case
- "The refusal to take the intoximeter test constitutes what might be termed a negative predicate which was productive of nothing more than sheer speculation, surmise, and innuendo"
- “the defendant [had] a fundamental right to refuse the test”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Harris v. State, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 15 (1989)
Insofar as the following opinions are inconsistent with this opinion, they are expressly overruled: Duckworth v. State, 309 P.2d 1103 (Okla.Crim.App.1957); Engler v. State, 316 P.2d 625 (Okla.Crim.App.1957); Jackson v. State, 397 P.2d 920 (Okla.Crim.App.1964); Gay v. State, 449 P.2d 906 (Okla.Crim.App.1969); Simmons v. State, 485 P.2d 489 (Okla.Crim.App.
The opinion
On Petition for Rehearing
BRETT, Presiding Judge.
Petition for rehearing denied, and the Clerk is ordered to issue the mandate forthwith.
NIX, J., concurs.
POWELL, J., dissents.