Olson v. State
260 P.3d 1056
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Olson was arrested in Anchorage for DWI and refused a breath test at the station.
- The officer used an implied-consent form with an outdated look-back penalty stating a five-year window.
- Olson had multiple prior DWI convictions, with one just outside the five-year window but within ten years.
- The ten-year look-back was enacted in 2001; Olson’s prior May 1997 conviction fell just outside five years but inside ten.
- Olson was convicted of class C felony for refusal, and the court of appeals affirmed before this decision, which remanded for prejudice showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the incorrect warning about refusal penalties violated due process | Olson argues due process was violated by misstatement | State argues warning sufficed to inform crime and burden to prove elements met | Yes, misstatement raises due process concern; remand for prejudice inquiry |
| Who bears the burden to prove prejudice from the erroneous warning | Olson bears burden to show prejudice from misstatement | State argues no prejudice showing required or that misstatement is non-prejudicial | Olson bears burden to prove prejudice from the erroneous information |
| Whether police may provide additional information beyond the statute and how that affects due process | Misinformation can impair decision; additional information must be accurate | Police may provide extra information, but must not misstate consequences | Police may provide more information but misstatement requires prejudice showing; remand to assess prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Copelin v. State, 659 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1983) (warning must convey consequences and allow reconsideration; extra info must be accurate)
- Hernandez v. State, 28 P.3d 315 (Alaska App. 2001) (subjective confusion doctrina; prejudice analysis in misstatements)
- Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211 (Alaska 1981) ( Miranda-type warnings about rights and test consequences; burden to show confusion)
- Svedlund v. Municipality of Anchorage, 671 P.2d 378 (Alaska App. 1983) (adequate warnings to encourage testing; inform consequences; avoid ignorance)
- Wirz v. State, 577 P.2d 227 (Alaska 1978) (no right to refuse; but power to refuse; warnings and consequences)