Posted: March 11, 2026
Criminal Jury Instructions – Refusing a Chemical Test – Comment Period Expires April 25, 2026
The following instructions have been created or amended:
CR1010 Refusing a Chemical Test
Please reference the instruction(s) in your comments. Although these instructions are subject to a comment period, they are now ready for use. The Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee will consider all comments made during the comment period and may revise the instructions as appropriate. To view all MUJI Criminal instructions please visit the MUJI website – here.
The Judicial Council also encourages judges and practitioners to continuously share their experiences using any of the published instructions with the Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee. To view the Committee’s work please visit the MUJI Criminal Committee website – here.
The most recent draft omits language that is important to understanding the nature of the offense—specifically, that refusal is a strict liability crime. That omission matters. The removed language is an accurate statement of the law and provides necessary context for how this instruction should be applied.
Without it, there is a real risk that the instruction will be read to require a mens rea that does not exist in the statute. That is especially concerning given that Utah Code § 76-2-101(2) makes clear that offenses like this do not require a mental state unless one is expressly included. The elements themselves reflect that framework by not including any mens rea requirement, but the absence of explanatory language in the committee notes invites confusion and inconsistent application.
In practice, I expect this will lead to increased arguments that intent must be proven in refusal cases, even though the instruction itself does not require it. That runs contrary to the statutory scheme and risks turning a strict liability offense into something it is not.
I strongly oppose striking the language regarding strict liability from the Committee Notes on this model jury instruction for Chemical Test Refusal. The stricken language is legally correct; Chemical Test Refusal is a strict liability traffic offense, as is DUI. Striking the language could be interpreted by some to mean that there is a mens rea for Chemical Test Refusal other than strict liability, which is not true under the plain language of Utah Code 76-2-101 and 41-6a-520.1.
The committee should retain the note striking the strict liability language. In my experience, defense counsels have attempted to introduce a mens rea requirement by proposing a Mistake of Fact jury instruction in conjunction with the refusal instruction. That proposed instruction usually states that “unless otherwise provided, ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves the culpable mental state is a defense to any prosecution for that crime.” However, the offense of Refusal of a Chemical Test does not require the State to prove a culpable mental state. The appropriate standard is strict liability. Utah Code 41-6a-502(6) establishes that DUI is a strict liability offense. Refusal of a Chemical Test is analogous to DUI in several key respects; both are enhanced similarly, carry similar penalties, and are codified within the same title, chapter, and part (41-6a part 5). Given these parallels, the state is not required to prove a culpable mental state for Refusal of a Chemical Test. According, the committee should not hesitate to make this point explicit in its notes to avoid confusion and to preclude attempts to improperly introduce a mens rea element through additional jury instruction.