Do jury instructions on sobriety test refusals shift the burden of proof? Orem City v. Longoria Explained

In Orem City v. Longoria, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether jury instructions regarding a defendant’s refusal to submit to sobriety tests impermissibly shifted the burden of proof in a DUI case.

Background and Facts

Jaime Longoria was convicted of DUI and reckless driving after refusing to submit to field and chemical sobriety tests. After the first trial, the court granted a new trial based on concerns that the jury instructions unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the defense. At the second trial, Longoria again objected to the refusal instructions, arguing they should include language explaining that refusal may be supported by innocent reasons. The instructions told jurors they could “take notice of and give whatever weight you determine” to Longoria’s refusal to submit to tests.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether jury instructions on sobriety test refusals violated the defendant’s presumption of innocence by creating an inference of guilt without acknowledging potential innocent explanations for refusal.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished this case from State v. Bales, where problematic jury instruction language created an express presumption of guilt. Here, the instructions merely allowed jurors to weigh the refusal evidence as they saw fit, without creating any presumption. Critically, the court found that Longoria failed to demonstrate that evidence supported any innocent reasons for his refusal, making the requested instruction unwarranted.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that standard jury instructions on sobriety test refusals that allow jurors to weigh the evidence do not violate due process. However, practitioners should ensure the trial record contains evidence supporting any claimed innocent reasons for refusal before requesting specialized jury instructions, as courts will not include language unsupported by the evidence.