Thursday, March 23, 2017

Minneapolis DUI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Thomas (Decided March 22, 2017, Minnesota Supreme Court) which stands for the proposition that in defending a Minnesota DWI case, sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut!

In Thomas, the defendant was charged with 2nd Degree DWI  (a gross misdemeanor) because the State alleged he had 2 prior impaired driving incidents within the past ten years.  The State specifically relied upon the defendant's 2007 Minnesota DWI license revocation and a 2006 DWI conviction from Wisconsin.

The defendant pled not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.  In Minnesota, a defendant can stipulate to the existence of the prior offenses to remove that information from the jury's consideration.  The rationale is that even though the priors are an element of the offense, they are prejudicial and may make the jury more inclined to convict in the present case.  So if a defendant wants to stipulate to their existence outside the presence of the jury the matter can proceed to trial without the jury being informed of the defendant's DWI history.

In this case, the defendant refused to stipulate to the existence of his prior convictions and the matter then proceeded to trial. The State presented its case-in-chief, calling two witnesses—the police officers involved in the case—to show that Thomas was in physical control of a motor vehicle within 2 hours of having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more. But the State rested without offering the certified copies showing Thomas' prior impaired driving incidents!!

Outside the jury's presence, Thomas made a "motion for a directed verdict to the charge of second degree DWI." Thomas argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charged offense without the certified copies showing the prior incidents. The prosecutor responded that she had the certified copies "here" and made a motion to re-open its case-in-chief in order to offer the certified copies into evidence.

The district court granted the State's motion to reopen. The court relied on case law and the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure to conclude that it had the discretion to allow the State to reopen its case-in-chief to submit the omitted evidence. The court reasoned that Thomas had ample notice that his 2007 loss of license and 2006 prior conviction were going to be part of the case against him, and that the State failed to offer the evidence through inadvertence. Having granted the State's motion to reopen, the court indicated that it was denying Thomas' motion for acquittal "at this point on that basis."

The defendant was subsequently convicted of 2nd Degree DWI and on appeal, he contended that under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(1), the district court was required to immediately rule on his motion for judgment of acquittal before considering the State's motion to reopen its case-in-chief.

Thomas argued that under Rule 26.03, subdivision 18(l)(a), "[a]t the close of evidence for either party, the defendant may move for ... a judgment of acquittal on one or more of the charges if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." And when the defendant makes a motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case, "the court must rule on the motion." Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(2). But when the defendant's motion is made at the close of the defendant's case, "the court may reserve ruling on the motion, submit the case to the jury, and rule before or after verdict." 

Because the court is able to "reserve" ruling on the motion only when the motion is made at the close of the defendant's case, Thomas argues that the court had no authority to defer ruling on his motion, which was made at the close of the State's case. And, focusing on the phrase "must rule on the motion," Thomas contends that the plain language of Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(2), requires a district court to immediately rule on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's case before ruling on the State's motion to reopen.

In its opinion, the  Minnesota Supreme Court rejects the defendant's argument stating, "Thomas is essentially asking us to read the word 'immediately' into the phrase 'must rule on the motion.' But we are not permitted to add words or phrases to the text of an unambiguous rule. (citation omitted). Reading the two sentences of subdivision 18 together, it is clear that the district court cannot reserve ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal that is made at the close of the State's case until after the defense has offered evidence."

"Put differently, the phrase 'must rule on the motion' requires that a court rule on the defendant's motion before moving on to the next stage of the trial....But the rule says nothing about whether the district court may, as the district court did here, first decide whether to permit the State to reopen its case. In other words, the rule does not address the order in which the district court was required to address the two motions made in this case. Moreover, requiring the district court to rule on the motion for judgment of acquittal before ruling on the State's motion to reopen is not necessary to accomplish the purpose of Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(2), at least not as the motion for acquittal was presented here. Subdivision 18(2) prohibits "reserving ruling on a motion to acquit" made at the close of the prosecution's case..."[g]iven the presumption of innocence and the state's burden to prove the offense, a defendant has no obligation to present any evidence and should not be put at risk of providing evidence that fills gaps in the state's case."

"In other words, we prohibit a district court from reserving its ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's case to protect the defense from having to come forward with evidence that would "fill[] gaps" in the State's case. In this case, the district court's decision to rule on the State's motion to reopen before ruling on the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal did not have that effect."

"In sum, Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(2), requires a court to rule on the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal when it is made at the close of the prosecution's case. But neither the plain language of the rule nor our case law requires the district court to rule on the motion for acquittal before considering a motion to reopen the State's case."

Moral Of The Story:  When the State rests its case and has failed to present evidence on an element of the offense, the defense should immediately rest as well and only then move for a judgment of acquittal.  



If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DUI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.






No comments:

Post a Comment