State v. Schmidt, 19 A.3d 457

Defendant Schmidt, a repeat DWI offender, was read the standard warnings before a breath test and consented to provide samples.
Three attempts to provide a breath sample were attempted; the first two were too short/low volume for a valid reading.
Before the third attempt, the officer warned that failure to provide a proper sample would constitute a refusal, and Schmidt provided another inadequate breath.
Schmidt was charged with refusal under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2 after the third inadequate sample, and the municipal court convicted him on a stipulated record.
Law Division rejected arguments about the Additional Statement; Appellate Division reversed, holding the Additional Statement was required under ambiguous circumstances.
The Supreme Court held that the Additional Statement need not be read when Schmidt clearly consented and failed to provide a valid sample, as the Standard Statement governs and the Executive Branch controls its content.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Additional Statement must be read when consent is given but samples are inadequate	Schmidt’s unequivocal consent did not require the Additional Statement.	Appellate Division required the Additional Statement due to ambiguity in respondent’s actions after consent.	Not required; no ambiguity after clear consent.
Whether failure to provide a minimum breath sample constitutes refusal under the statute	Defendant knowingly refused after being warned of consequences.	Refusal should not be imposed unless clearly proven by sufficient breath sample as defined by law.	Yes, defendant committed refusal by failing to provide minimum sample after warnings.
What the Standard Statement and its amendments designate about authority and due process	Executive Branch controls content; standard statement adequate.	Appellate expansion improperly injected into executive domain requiring Additional Statement in more cases.	Executive-controlled standard statement suffices; no misalignment with Spell; no due process violation.

State v. Spell, 196 N.J. 537 (N.J. 2008) (addresses reading of Additional Statement when ambiguity exists)
State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475 (N.J. 1999) (ambiguity/conditional responses and need for standard statement amendment)
State v. Duffy, 348 N.J. Super. 609 (App. Div. 2002) (ambiguity after consent may trigger Additional Statement)
State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (N.J. 2008) (minimum breath sample requirements and timing)
State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (N.J. 2010) (notice of consequences of refusing; breathalyzer testing)
State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1991) (refusal concept and related procedures)
State v. Spell, 196 N.J. 537 (N.J. 2008) (definitive articulation on the Additional Statement (see above citations) (duplicate entry allowed if needed))
State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534 (N.J. 1987) (suggested revisions to standard statement design)