The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Waldron (Decided May 7, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you cannot be convicted of a DWI if you are charged under the wrong statute. Well duh! Too bad the Defendant had to go all the way to the Court of Appeals to establish that. But then again, nothing surprises me about the decisions of some district courts.
In Waldron, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of DWI, in violation of Minnesota Statute 169A.20, subds. 1(1), & 1(5). At trial it was undisputed that the Defendant was driving an all terrain vehicle (ATV).
The Defendant moved to vacate the conviction arguing the evidence was insufficient to convict him under the charged statutes as the particular statute specifically exempts ATV's. The statute states: "It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles," while intoxicated. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1.
The prosecutor should have charged Mr. Waldron pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169A.20 subd. 1(b) which independently makes it "a crime for any person to operate or be in physical control of a[n] . . . [ATV] as defined in section 84.92, subdivision 8," while intoxicated. But since the case was not brought under the proper statute, the Minnesota Court of Appeals correctly ruled: "Because operating an ATV while intoxicated cannot form the basis for a conviction under section 169A.20, subdivisions 1(1) or 1(5), we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Waldron violated those statutes."
Moral Of The Story: Details Matter!
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 Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment