Criminal Law — Evidence — Refusal to submit to chemical tests — Harmless error — Intoxication.
On appeal by defendant following conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, of failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and of operating a motor vehicle during suspension, it was Held that, in the light of the uncontradicted testimony of several witnesses that defendant was intoxicated, the admission into evidence of the refusal of defendant to submit to a chemical test was harmless error.
Submitted June 12, 1972.
OPINION PER CURIAM, September 15, 1972:
The only real issue this case presents is the constitutional validity of the provision of The Vehicle Code that: "The refusal to submit to a chemical test may be admitted into evidence as a factor to be considered in determining innocence or guilt." Although the courts are in disagreement as to whether such statutes violate the Fifth Amendment or as to whether such evidence is inadmissible on other grounds, the record in this case shows the admission of such evidence in any event is harmless error in light of the uncontradicted testimony of four witnesses, including three police officers, that the appellant was intoxicated.
Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, § 624.1, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 624.1.
The Pennsylvania courts have not considered this issue. For a good discussion of the various positions which courts in other jurisdictions have adopted, see State v. Munroe, 22 Conn. Sup. 321, 171 A.2d 419 (1961); Annot., 87 A.L.R. 2d 370 (1963).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.