Minnesota DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Patton (Decided November 25, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a hit and run and a DWI do not necessarily arise from the same behavioral incident.

In Patton, a 911 caller reported his vehicle had been struck by a Ford truck in Isanti County.  An officer in Anoka County subsequently located and stopped the truck.  The Defendant was driving the Ford and was subsequently arrested for DWI.

The Defendant pled guilty to Hit and Run in Isanti County and subsequently moved to dismiss the Anoka County DWI, asserting that pursuant to Minnesota Statute  609.035, subd. 1, if the person engages in conduct that “constitutes more than one offense . . . , the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction ... of any one ... is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.”

The district court denied the motion, finding the DWI and hit-and-run offenses did not occur in substantially the same place because they occurred approximately 6.5 miles apart and in different counties. The district court found that the hit-and-run offense was reported at 7:50 p.m. and Patton was arrested for DWI at 8:20 p.m. But the court found no evidence as to precisely when the first offense occurred.

On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, stating:

"The determination whether multiple offenses arose from the same behavioral incident necessarily depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the case."

***

"In Johnson, our supreme court established the test that guides our analysis. After pleading guilty to driving over the center line, Johnson moved to dismiss a related DWI charge on the ground that its prosecution was barred by Minn. Stat. § 609.035 because it arose from the same behavioral incident. 141 N.W.2d at 520. The Johnson court recognized that when intent is not a factor, two or more offenses result from a single behavioral incident when they “occur at substantially the same time and place and arise out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincidental errors of judgment.” Id. at 525; see State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825, 828 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Johnson)} Because Johnson committed the two offenses “within a period of a few minutes and a distance of two blocks,” and his conduct “manifest[ed] an indivisible state of mind,” the supreme court concluded that they flowed from the same behavioral incident. 141 N.W.2d at 525".

"Because Patton was charged with both unintentional and general-intent crimes,  we focus on the three-prong Johnson test."

***

"The circumstances of Patton’s offenses do not demonstrate the proximity of time and place that was present in Johnson, Corning, and other cases Patton cites."

***

"The actual time between Patton’s two offenses likely exceeds 30 minutes as that time frame does not include the period during which the other driver pursued Patton before calling the police. Either way, we are not persuaded that the offenses occurred at substantially the same time. The undisputed 30- minute interval between Patton’s offenses is markedly longer than those found in other cases. In Corning, the second offense occurred very close in time to the first offense— while police were obtaining initial information at the accident scene. 184 N.W.2d at 605. In Gladden, the offenses occurred “within a few minutes.” 144 N.W.2d at 780. And the same in Johnson. 141 N.W.2d at 525."

***

"In sum, the time and place prongs of the Johnson test do not support a determination that Patton’s crimes arose from the same behavioral incident. Because the three prongs of the Johnson test—time, place, course of conduct—are joined by the conjunctive “and,” all three must be satisfied to conclude that Patton’s offenses arose from the same behavioral incident."

I do not think this case makes a lot of sense.  Under its logic, if you get caught right away, you can only be convicted of one offense.  But if you manage to escape for a short period, the State can pile on the convictions.

Moral Of The Story:  If you commit more than one offense, turn yourself in.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota Case of the Week is State v. Anderson, (Unpublished, Minnesota Court of Appeals, issued March 3, 2014) which stands for the proposition that if you are going to drive drunk, it is best not to assault the officers seeking to place you under arrest!

In Anderson, the Defendant was stopped by the State Patrol for speeding.  When the trooper approached the driver's-side window, he smelled the odor of alcohol, observed the Defendant's speech was slurred and that Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and watery (i.e the holy trinity of state trooper dwi symptoms).  The trooper asked Mr. Anderson to get out of his vehicle to perform some field sobriety tests.  In response, Mr. Anderson stated, "F*ck you" and drove off at a high speed.

The state trooper gave chase and eventually Mr. Anderson lost control of his vehicle and crashed his car into a center median.  The Defendant then got out of his car and charged the state trooper.  Mr. Anderson punched the state trooper on the side of the head before being taken to the ground and placed under arrest.

The Defendant was charged, convicted and sentenced to 60 months in prison for Felony DWI, Fleeing a Police Officer and Fourth Degree Assault.  On appeal, the Defendant argued that the trial court erred by imposing sentences on all three offenses because the charges all arose from the "same behavioral incident".

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's challenge and affirmed the District Court noting that: "As a general rule, if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses. Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (2010). Accordingly, if a person is charged with multiple offenses, a district court must determine whether the offenses resulted from a single behavioral incident, in which event multiple punishments are prohibited".  

The purpose of the statute is to "protect a defendant convicted of multiple offenses against unfair exaggeration of the criminality of his conduct".  And in determining whether multiple offenses arose from a single behavioral incident, the Court utilizes a two-part test:

(1)  Did the offenses occur at substantially the same time and place, and;

(2)  Did they all arise from a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the Defendant was correct that the three offenses, "occurred at substantially the same time and place".  But the Court of Appeals then found the Defendant had failed to meet the second part of the test (i.e. the offenses did not arise from "a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment").

The Appellate Court found that there were distinct interruptions that broke the continuity of the Defendant's conduct.  Anderson was engaging in the first offense, DWI when he was stopped by the state trooper.  The Defendant had pulled over the to side of the road and was initially cooperative with the trooper, thereby interrupting his criminal activity.  But after speaking to the trooper for several minutes, Anderson decided to flee, thereby committing the second offense.  After crashing his car and ending the chase (i.e. the second offense), the Defendant chose to then commit the third offense, assaulting a peace officer.  Because Anderson's course of conduct was interrupted twice, the Court of Appeals held that the offenses did not arise from "continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment".  Therefore, the offenses did not arise from a single behavioral incident and multiple sentences were properly imposed by the District Court.

Moral Of The Story:  Drinking can make you mean.