Skip to content
CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether defendant met his burden of proving physical inability to test?
Defendant challenged the implied consent revocation of his drivers license, following a DWI. There are two (2) cases in every single DWI case. And, by the way, DWI and DUI are the same thing. In a DWI case, there is a criminal case, where the primary issues are: (1) whether the defendant will be convicted of anything, and if so, what; (2) will there be any jail time? (3) fine; and (4) length and terms of probation. Frequently, in a DWI DUI case, a defendant will be required to obtain a chemical use assessment and follow recommendations, and, abstain from using alcohol, and not drive without a valid license and insurance. In every DWI DUI case, there is also a civil implied consent case, where the issue is usually over whether the defendant’s drivers license will be revoked. A filing fee must be paid, and the trial is to a court, not a jury. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by asking questions during the hearing and that he satisfied his burden of proof by presenting sufficient evidence of his physical inability to test. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error by inquiring about defendant’s prior DWI charges during the implied consent hearing, and, did not clearly err in finding that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the affirmative defense of physical inability. Affirmed.
Jackson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, A21-0716, Ramsey County.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
