San Francisco DUI Lawyer DMV Hearing and License Suspension

• Introduction
• What To Do First
• Elements of the Offense
• BAC Calculator
• Misdemeanor DUI Case
• Criminal Jury Trial
• Criminal Court Punishment
• Alternative Sentencing
• Sentencing Enhancements
• Refusal Cases
  • DMV and Court
  • Jury Instructions
  • Forced Blood Draw
• Felony DUI Case
• Medication Cases
• Drug Cases
• Federal DUI Case
• Out-of-State Drivers
• Drowsy Driving
• Post-Conviction Relief
• Ignition Interlock Devices
• Motorcycles, Boats, Planes
• California Highway Patrol
• California DUI Resources

Jury Instructions

Drivers who refuse to take chemical tests after a DUI arrest as required by California law are in violation of California V.C. Section 13353 - Refusal of Chemical Test and face consequences both at the California Department of Motor Vehicles and DUI criminal trial. Jurors in drunk driving trials are given specific instructions on how to weigh chemical test refusals.

During trial, prosecutors use refusals as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The usual argument is that the person arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) must have been drunk, or the driver would have consented to a chemical test. This argument is typical, because the prosecutor doesn't have any actual evidence of the driver's blood alcohol content (BAC).

Although this sometimes works for prosecutors, a valid excuse, such as injury or an inability to provide a sample, may prompt jurors to excuse the refusal. Because of this, prosecutors lose more refusal cases that any other type of drunk driving case. A California criminal attorney experienced at defending drunk driving cases will develop a strategy designed to prompt a jury to excuse the refusal.

The instructions given to juries in refusal cases come from the California Jury Instructions (CALJIC). The instructions state that:

The law requires that any driver who has been lawfully arrested submit to a chemical test at the request of a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested was driving under the influence.

If the defendant refused to submit to such a test after a peace officer asked (him/her) to do so and explained the test's nature to the defendant, then the defendant's conduct may show that (he/she) was aware of (his/her) guilt. If you conclude that the defendant refused to submit to such a test, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of the refusal. However, evidence that the defendant refused to submit to such a test cannot prove guilt by itself.

This section is usually read to jurors before they deliberate on a DUI case at trial. The California Jury Instructions (CALJIC) also addresses punishment enhancements in a refusal case, although the jury is specifically told that they are not to be concerned with penalty or punishment in a drunk driving case:

Driving under the influence or with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more AND failure to submit to or complete a test will result in suspension of (his/her) driving privilege for one year or revocation of (his/her) driving privilege for two or three years.

As the instructions clearly state, the jury must decide whether a refusal constitutes consciousness of guilt, and whether it can be excused. A jury given a valid reason for a refusal is much more likely to excuse the driver. A California criminal lawyer who concentrates on DUI defense will determine whether a valid reason existed to decline a chemical test.

Home > Bay Area DUI > Refusal Cases > Jury Instructions