State of Oklahoma v. Ramon Ambrose Armstrong

Lawton, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol Second and Subsequent.

1 The State charged Appellee Ramon Ambrose Armstrong, in the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CF-2020-447, with Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol Second and Subsequent (Count 1), in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2018, § 11-902(A)(1), Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on Government Employee (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 650.9, and Unsafe Lane Use (Count 3), in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2018, § 11-309. The Honorable Grant Sheperd, District Judge, presided over Armstrong's jury trial. The jury acquitted Armstrong on each count.

¶2 Before the Court is a state appeal on reserved questions of law. See 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1053(3). The questions presented in this appeal are:

(1) whether 47 O.S.Supp.2017, § 756 specifically allows the State to introduce a defendant's refusal to take the State's breath test and to argue to the jury that it is evidence of intoxication, is it error for the trial court to prohibit the State from presenting this evidence to the jury unless a defendant first takes the stand; and

(2) whether Armstrong's refusal to take the State's breath test was a refusal pursuant to 47 O.S.Supp.2017, § 756 and after Armstrong put into evidence both the implied consent test form and the refusal form, should the trial court have instructed the jury pursuant to Instruction No. 9-47, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp.2008).

* * *

¶13 For the reasons discussed above, we find that the State was properly allowed to introduce evidence of Armstrong's refusal to submit to a breath test under 47 O.S.Supp.2017, § 756(A). We find that the introduction of this evidence was not conditioned upon Armstrong first testifying at trial and that, subject to the limiting instruction, Instruction No. 9-47, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp.2008), evidence of Armstrong's refusal to take the breath test is a circumstance which, along with all the other evidence in this case, could be considered by the jury in determining the question of Armstrong's guilt.

¶14 The RESERVED QUESTIONS OF LAW are ANSWERED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2025), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.