Legal Opinion
State v. Wetsch
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 1, 1994No. C6-93-942PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PETERSON, Judge.
On appeal from his conviction for failure to provide proof of insurance, Robert Wetsch argues Minn.Stat. § 169.791, subd. 2 (1992), the proof of insurance statute, is ambiguous and therefore violates the due process guarantees of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions because it does not state whether scienter is an element of the offense when the driver is the owner of the car. We find that Minn.Stat. § 169.791, subd. 2 is unambiguous and affirm Wetsch’s conviction.
FACTS
Appellant Robert Wetsch was cited for failure to register a car and failure to provide proof…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- State v. SoukupCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Bersch v. Rgnonti & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- State v. MayardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Nevels v. State, Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.