From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Twiss

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Oct 3, 1974
222 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 1974)

Opinion

No. 39415.

Filed October 3, 1974.

Appeal from the District Court for Sheridan County: ROBERT R. MORAN, Judge. Affirmed.

Fisher Fisher, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Steven C. Smith, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON, and BRODKEY, JJ.


Defendant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor and subsequently the operator's license of defendant was revoked for refusal to take a blood, breath, or urine test. The order of revocation was appealed.

The record discloses that the requirements of section 39-727.03 (2), (4), and (5), R. S. Supp., 1972, were complied with and defendant was given the choice of taking a breath, blood, or urine test. Defendant refused to take a test. Defendant insists that after he had refused to take a test, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to again advise the defendant of the consequences of failing to take the test.

Section 39-727.03 (5), R. S. Supp., 1972, requires that any "person who is required to submit * * * to a chemical blood, breath or urine test * * * shall be advised of the consequences of refusing to submit to such test." This admonition was given but we fail to find any statutory requirement that it be repeated after a defendant refuses to take the test. The proposition advanced is without merit.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Twiss

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Oct 3, 1974
222 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 1974)
Case details for

State v. Twiss

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. RUSSELL P. TWISS, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska

Date published: Oct 3, 1974

Citations

222 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 1974)
222 N.W.2d 108

Citing Cases

Rowland v. Brown

The controlling question in the case was one of fact. It was fairly and properly submitted to the jury by the…

Anderson v. Lynch

We do not think that the instruction left the jury to plant verdict upon the presumption to the ignoring of…