Summary
declining to reach issue of blood-sample admissibility because it would not have critical impact on prosecution
Summary of this case from State v. JedlickaOpinion
No. C0-97-1142.
Filed October 28, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 96104388.
Steven M. Tallen, (for appellant).
Jerry Strauss, (for respondent).
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The state appeals from the district court's order suppressing blood test results in the prosecution of respondent Leah Marie Jedlicka for careless driving and underage consumption of alcohol and driving. Because we find the state has failed to demonstrate that the suppressed evidence critically impacts the state's case, we affirm.
FACTS
On October 12, 1996, Leah Marie Jedlicka was involved in a fatal car accident. Jedlicka advised responding officers that she was the driver of the car that struck and killed the victim, a motorist standing on the highway shoulder. The responding officers detected an odor of alcohol about Jedlicka and asked Jedlicka whether she had been drinking. Jedlicka acknowledged that she had two drinks earlier in the evening. An officer read Jedlicka the implied consent advisory and Jedlicka agreed to submit to a blood test. The results indicated that Jedlicka's blood alcohol concentration was .04.
The state charged Jedlicka with careless driving and underage consumption of alcohol and driving. Jedlicka moved to suppress the blood test results. The court granted the motion, finding the officer did not have probable cause to obtain the blood sample. The state appeals from the district court's suppression order.
DECISION
A pretrial order is subject to review only if the appellant demonstrates clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.
State v. Joon Kyu Kim , 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn. 1987) (citing State v. Webber , 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. 1977)). To show critical impact, the state must demonstrate that the likelihood of a successful prosecution is significantly reduced by the state's inability to present the suppressed evidence. State v. Zanter , 535 N.W.2d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (citing Joon Kyu Kim , 398 N.W.2d at 547). Whether the suppressed evidence significantly affects the strength of the state's case depends in large part on the nature of the state's evidence against the accused. Id.
The state argues the suppression of the blood alcohol test results critically impacts the prosecution of Jedlicka for careless driving under Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 and underage consumption of alcohol and driving under Minn. Stat. § 169.1218. We disagree. The state has other evidence that Jedlicka consumed alcoholic beverages before driving. The responding officers observed that she smelled of alcohol when they spoke with her at the accident scene, and Jedlicka admitted that she had two drinks prior to the accident. Alcohol consumption may be relevant evidence in a prosecution for careless driving but is not an element of the offense. Unlike a prosecution for DWI, where the state is required to prove a suspect is under the influence of alcohol or is driving with an alcohol concentration above the statutory limit, the state only must show a suspect drank some alcohol before driving to prove the offense of underage consumption of alcohol and driving. Cf. State v. Ault , 478 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Minn.App. 1991) (holding a chemical test showing alcohol concentration in excess of statutory limit critically impacts a prosecution for DWI). Although the blood test results may provide the best proof that Jedlicka had been drinking alcohol, the suppression of this evidence does not critically impact the state's case.
Because the state has not made the threshold showing of critical impact, we do not address the merits of the state's argument that the district court erroneously suppressed the blood test results.