 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Johnson12/16/2003
submit to testing if the Defendant's refusal was reasonable. The burden of proof on this issue and only this issue is on the Defendant. The Defendant has the burden of proving this defense by the preponderance of the evidence. This means that the Defendant must prove that it is more likely true than not true that his refusal to take the test was reasonable.
For example, a Defendant's refusal is reasonable when the officer gives confusing and misleading information to the Defendant regarding his rights or if the police have made no attempt to inform a confused Defendant of his obligation to submit to testing. The law only requires that the police officer read the printed advisory consent form to the defendant.
Appellant argues that the district court's use of an example excluded any possibility that a physical, medical, or mental condition could constitute a reasonable refusal. We disagree.
The district court's instruction was a substantially correct statement of the law. See Peterson v. State, 282 N.W.2d 878, 881 (Minn. 1979) (holding no error of fundamental law or controlling principle where the instruction correctly states the elements of a charge). The court was careful to use the phrase, " or example," before the reference to the example of a reasonable refusal. Moreover, the jurors had written copies of the instruction when they went to deliberate; we assume the jury followed the court's instructions. See State v. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d 87, 94 (Minn. 2002). We conclude that the instruction did not contain an error of fundamental law or controlling principle and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
DECISION
Because any erroneous implication caused by the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument was harmless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial. The district court properly exercised its discretion in precluding an emergency room doctor from testifying about a condition in which he was not an expert and for which he had not treated appellant. The district court did not abuse its discretion by including an example of a reasonable refusal in the jury instructions.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|