The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Johnson (Decided June 27, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Nonprecedential) which stands for the proposition that jury instructions are to be read and interpreted in their entirety.
In Johnson, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and was read the Minnesota breath test advisory at a police station in St. Louis County. Defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath and Johnson declined. The officer, without first obtaining a search warrant, then asked the Defendant to submit to a urine test. Johnson again declined to submit to testing. Mr. Johnson was subsequently charged and convicted of felony refusal to submit to a breath test.
On appeal, Johnson argued that his conviction for test refusal must be reversed because the district court's instruction did not specify which chemical test the state had to prove Johnson refused when he refused both the breath test and a urine test.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction noting that since the Defendant did not object to the instructions in the district court, the appellate court would use the "plain error" standard of review:
"When reviewing jury instructions for plain error, appellate courts review them in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case...Appellate courts will not reverse a district court’s decision on jury instructions absent an abuse of discretion. Id. District courts abuse their discretion if the instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law,” State v. Taylor, 869 N. W.2d 1, 14-15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted), or if the instructions omit an element of the charged offense, State v. Stay, 935 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Minn. 2019)."
"Once an officer has (1) probable cause to believe that the person was driving while impaired, (2) placed the person under lawful arrest for DWI, (3) requested that the person take a breath test, and (4) read the person the breath-test advisory, Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subds. 1(b)(1), 2 (2018), “[i]t is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test. . . of the person’s breath.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(1)."
"However, a person cannot be prosecuted for refusing to submit to an unconstitutional warrantless blood or urine test. State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 234 (Minn 2016)."
"Here, the district court instructed:
First, a peace officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant drove, operated, or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. . . .
Second, the peace officer placed the defendant under lawful arrest for driving while impaired. . . .
Third, the defendant was given the breath-test advisory by the peace officer.
Fourth, the defendant was requested by the peace officer to submit to a chemical test of the defendant’s breath.
Fifth, the defendant refused to submit to the test."
Johnson claimed that because the fifth element of the jury instructions failed to specify which test the state had to prove Johnson refused and instead merely said “the test,” the jury was not properly instructed that Johnson could only be convicted if he refused the breath test, not the urine test.
The Court of Appeals rejected Johnson's claim, holding:
"The jury instructions given by the district court included all elements of the offense and fairly explained the law. Milton, 821 N.W.2d at 805. When read “in their entirety,” it is clear that the fifth element was referring to a breath test. Id. The contested sentence— “Fifth, the defendant refused to submit to the test”—immediately followed two sentences that listed the “[tjhird” and “[fjourth” elements of the offense and included “breath test” and “test of the defendant’s breath.” The first sentence of the instructions also stated that “whoever refuses to submit to a chemical test of the person’s breath ... is guilty of a crime.” There was no reference to a urine test in the jury instructions. Thus, when the fifth element is read in context, the jury instructions did not “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” Taylor, 869 N.W.2d at 14-15 (quotation omitted). Consequently, under the plain-error analysis, the district court did not err in its jury instructions."
Moral Of The Story: If you refuse to submit, they will convict.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment