In State v. Hamm, 157 Vt. 666, 599 A.2d 1048 (1991) (mem.), the Court took note of the fact that missing from defendant's claim before the lower court, or in his brief, was any assertion that the deficiency in the form had any bearing on his refusal to take the test, and held that the defendant had the burden of production on the issue of prejudice. Id. at 667, 599 A.2d at 1048-49. There, the Court held that defendant has to "introduce some evidence that any deficiency in the advice he received was prejudicial." Id. at 667, 599 A.2d at 1049.