An appellate panel affirmed the conviction of a DWI defendant who refused to take a breathalyzer test, even though the defendant asserted that he did not know enough English to understand the police officer's pre-test statement. It was not enough to assert a lack of understanding, the Appellate Division ruled in an opinion released yesterday. Rather, evidence must be introduced to show the defendant's lack of understanding.
In State v. Kim, the Court held that "[t]he mere allegation that defendant did not have sufficient comprehension of the English language to knowingly refuse to submit breath samples does not place a material issue in dispute to require an evidentiary hearing. . . let alone void the basis for his conviction."
At times, as the police officer spoke during the stop in question, the defendant stated that he did not understand what was being said. However, the Appellate Division found that the defendant understood English, and was even familiar with his rights, including the right to an attorney and the right to decline to make a statement.
The opinion makes it clear that any question about a defendant's ability to understand the police officer's statements must be raised in a motion, and evidence of the defendant's ability to understand must be offered to the court. It is not enough merely to assert that the defendant failed to understand the officer.
The opinion also underscores the importance of identifying all issues and raising them in a timely manner so that the court has an opportunity to develop the evidence on the record. Failure to do so could mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.
