From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hallfielder

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Dec 19, 1985
375 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

noting that DWI statute "allow the use of a partial test to prove that someone is under the influence"

Summary of this case from State v. Braun

Opinion

No. C6-85-1396.

October 29, 1985. Review Denied December 19, 1985.

Appeal from the County Court, St. Louis County, Galen C. Wilson, J.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Philip J. Sorenson, Asst. City Atty., William Dinan, Duluth City Atty., Duluth, for appellant.

Mark A. Munger, MacDonald, Munger Downs, Duluth, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and WOZNIAK and HUSPENI, JJ.


OPINION


This is an appeal by the State of Minnesota from a pretrial order preventing the State from charging respondent Jack Hallfielder with driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more. We affirm.

FACTS

Duluth police officers arrested Hallfielder for D.W.I. The intoxilyzer test for alcohol concentration resulted in one adequate sample of .216 and one deficient sample of .207. Hallfielder brought a motion seeking to preclude the State from proving at trial, through the use of the partial test, that he had violated Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (1984), by driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.

ISSUE

May a partial intoxilyzer test be used to prove a violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (1984)?

ANALYSIS

Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (1984) provides that it is a misdemeanor for a person to drive with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more. Minn.Stat. § 169.123 (1984) requires two adequate breath samples for a valid intoxilyzer test. Id. at subd. 2b(a); Godderz v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 369 N.W.2d 606, 607 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). In Godderz, we stated that a partial test cannot be used in a criminal D.W.I. prosecution to establish an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more. Id.

Appellant essentially requests us to reconsider that decision. We decline to do so. While § 169.121, subd. 2 does allow the use of a partial test to prove that someone is under the influence, Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(a), it does not provide that a partial test can be used to establish 0.10 or more, id., subd. 1(d).

DECISION

The trial court did not err in precluding the State from using a partial intoxilyzer test to prove a violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d). Respondent is awarded $750.00 in attorney's fees for this appeal pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.04, subd. 2(6).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Hallfielder

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Dec 19, 1985
375 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

noting that DWI statute "allow the use of a partial test to prove that someone is under the influence"

Summary of this case from State v. Braun
Case details for

State v. Hallfielder

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Jack Franklin HALLFIELDER, Respondent

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 19, 1985

Citations

375 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. McIntyre

See, State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307, 172 P.3d 570 (2007), abrogated on other grounds, State v. Ahrens, 296…

State v. Braun

(quotation omitted)), aff'd in part, rev'd on other grounds, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009); State v.…