The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Clark (Decided September 11, 2017, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you do not have to be found inside your vehicle to be convicted of a Minnesota DWI.
In Clark, a woman was driving with her husband in the early morning hours of January 7, 2015. They saw the Defendant, Anthony Clark, walking down the middle of the road straight at her vehicle and waving his hands in the air. They slowed down to speak with the Defendant, who appeared delusional, hurt, and in need of help. The woman called 911 to report the situation and as they continued they also noticed a vehicle in the ditch about 6 feet beyond where Defendant was walking and associated the vehicle with Defendant. It was very cold outside and had recently snowed. The woman and her husband did not see anyone else around. They were unable to stay at the scene, but others arrived to help.
Another individual allowed the Defendant to sit in his vehicle until help arrived. Officer Miguel Guadalajara and Officer Patrick Sloan arrived separately at the scene shortly after starting their early morning shifts. Officer Sloan saw the vehicle in the ditch and parked his squad car on the road north of the vehicle.
Officer Guadalajara also observed the vehicle in the ditch and did not see anyone by the vehicle. He parked his squad car on the road south of the vehicle in the ditch. As he approached the vehicles parked on the road ahead, he saw footprints around the vehicle in the ditch. He saw a set of footprints with the same tread outside the driver's side door of the vehicle in the ditch and leading from the driver's side up toward the vehicle occupied by the Defendant. The officer noticed the Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes and smelled of an alcoholic beverage.
Officer Guadalajara advised Defendant that they believed he drove the vehicle into the ditch and that he was intoxicated while driving. He gave Defendant a preliminary breath test, which registered an alcohol concentration of 0.183. Defendant was placed under arrest on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI) and read the implied-consent advisory. When asked to submit to a breath test, the Defendant refused. The Defendant was then charged with First Degree Refusal to Submit to Testing (Felony refusal due to his prior DWI record).
At trial, Officer Sloan testified that he believed that appellant was the driver of the vehicle in the ditch. He observed footprints in the recently fallen snow around the general vicinity of the driver's side door and testified that it looked like only one person had come from the vehicle. He located the vehicle's keys inside the vehicle, but not in the ignition. He found a backpack in the backseat containing appellant's cell phone and papers and effects with appellant's name on them. He also located 5-Hour Energy drinks in the front passenger seat, the same type that he found on appellant during the pat-down. Officer Guadalajara testified that he found a 5-Hour Energy drink in the back of his squad car after appellant got out of the car at the police department.
The jury found the Defendant guilty of felony refusal and on appeal, he claimed the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the conviction, noting:
"In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, this court's review is limited to a thorough analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.(citation omitted)".
"Appellant argues on appeal that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that appellant was in physical control of the vehicle in the ditch because appellant was found walking down the road; no one saw him in the vehicle or in the driver's seat; the vehicle was immobile in a snowy ditch; no one saw the vehicle go into the ditch; and the keys were found in the vehicle but not in the ignition."
"In viewing the evidence here in the light most favorable to the conviction, and assuming that the jury believed the state's witnesses, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that Officers Sloan and Guadalajara observed or had information that: (1) there was an immobile vehicle in a snowy ditch on the side of Barnes road in a rural location; (2) it was a very cold day and had recently snowed; (3) witnesses reported a man in need of help walking in the road in close proximity to the vehicle in the ditch; (4) no one saw the vehicle go into the ditch or saw anyone in the vehicle; (5) no one saw anyone other than appellant near the vehicle; (6) appellant exhibited signs of hypothermia and indicia of intoxication when the officers arrived; (7) there were footprints that looked like they came from the same person in front of the vehicle in the ditch and leading from its driver's side up to M.G.'s vehicle, where appellant was sitting when the officers arrived; (8) the keys were located inside the unlocked vehicle in the ditch but were not in the ignition; (9) a backpack in the backseat of the vehicle contained appellant's cell phone, as well as papers and effects with his name on them; and (10) 5-Hour Energy drinks were found in the front passenger seat of the vehicle, on appellant's person during a pat-down search, and in the back of Officer Guadalajara's squad car after appellant got out of it at the police department."
"The evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that a reasonable officer in this situation would have entertained an honest and strong suspicion that appellant had the means to initiate the vehicle's movement despite its immobility, and was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle at any time, so as to establish probable cause that appellant was in physical control. Thus, there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to reasonably conclude that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that appellant was in physical control of the motor vehicle, as required to find appellant guilty of first-degree test refusal."
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment