Legal Opinion

State v. Starfield

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 13, 1992No. C5-90-2182PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

There may be circumstances where oper-ability of a vehicle is relevant on the issue of whether a person has physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In this case failure to give a supplementary instruction on physical control factors was not requested, nor was it error not to have given such an instruction. The “physical control” conviction is, therefore, reinstated and the court of appeals’ decision vacating such conviction is reversed.

On February 24, 1989, at around 1:47 a.m., Ramsey County deputy sheriffs responded to a report of a car in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State, Department of Public Safety v. JuncewskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. Hughes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
  3. State v. WebbArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  4. State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  5. State v. SmelterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. United States v. McFarlandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
  2. State v. HuberNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Hughes v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  4. State v. HageSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  5. State v. MurraySupreme Court of Iowa · 1995

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API