State v. Hicks, 44803

Citation222 N.W.2d 345,301 Minn. 350
Decision Date11 October 1974
Docket NumberNo. 44803,44803
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Harold W. HICKS, Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Syllabus by the Court

1. To obtain review of a pretrial order to suppress evidence pursuant to Minn.St. 632.11, the prosecution must show that the adverse order of the trial court effectively prevents the chance of a successful prosecution because of a lack of evidence, other than that suppressed, which would permit a successful prosecution. While the order in this case would not prevent the chance of a successful prosecution of a charge of driving while under the influence, it would preclude a successful prosecution of a charge of driving with .10 percent or more blood alcohol content, and therefore the order is appealable.

2. Foundation for a lay person's opinion concerning whether another person was at a certain time intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol may consist of one or more of several indicators of intoxication, and it is unnecessary that a person exhibit all of the possible indicators before an opinion from a lay person concerning intoxication may be admitted.

R. Scott Davies, City Atty., A. Keith Hanzel and Frank E. Villaume III, Asst. City Attys., St. Paul, for appellant.

Hartke, Atkins & Montpetit and M. Eugene Atkins, South St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

MacLAUGHLIN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the state pursuant to Minn.St. 632.11 from a pretrial order of the St. Paul municipal court which, because of an alleged illegal arrest, suppressed certain evidence in a prosecution under § 169.121, specifically, statements made by defendant to police after defendant's arrest and results of a blood alcohol test. We reverse.

At approximately 8:45 p.m. on August 6, 1973, one Richard Schoumaker drove his automobile through a red light, causing the vehicle to collide with an automobile driven by defendant. After talking with defendant, Schoumaker asked the policemen who had arrived on the scene to test defendant for intoxication. The officers, who, since they did not witness defendant's driving, would have had to obtain a warrant in order to arrest him (see, City of St. Paul v. Webb, 256 Minn. 210, 97 N.W.2d 638, 76 A.L.R.2d 1423 (1959)), explained that they could not arrest defendant but informed Schoumaker of his right to make a citizen's arrest. Schoumaker thereupon executed the arrest of defendant for driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress the statements and the blood test, Schoumaker testified that following the accident both automobiles came to rest in the middle of the intersection but that defendant then put his automobile into reverse and accelerated into a traffic light nearby. The trial court, however, rejected this testimony, accepting instead defendant's testimony that the force of the collision pushed his automobile into the light. This left Schoumaker's observations made during his conversation with defendant as the factual foundation on which Schoumaker based his conclusion that defendant was under the influence. Specifically, these observations were that (a) defendant's breath and smelled of alcohol, (b) defendant's balance was not good, and (c) defendant's speech was affected. The trial court ruled that this foundation was inadequate to support Schoumaker's conclusion that defendant was driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and that, therefore, the arrest was illegal.

1. Before discussing whether the trial court abused its discretion in so ruling, we must decide whether the order is appealable. To obtain review of a pretrial order to suppress evidence pursuant to § 632.11, the prosecution must show that 'the trial court's adverse order has effectively prevented the chance of a successful prosecution because there is a lack of evidence, other than that suppressed, which would permit a successful prosecution.' State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 34, 178 N.W.2d 888, 890 (1970). In this case the trial court's adverse order has not effectively prevented the chance of a successful prosecution of the driving-while-under-the-influence charge because, under the court's order, Schoumaker would be permitted to testify as to his observation, although presumably barred from giving his opinion as to defendant's condition, and because the police officers would be able to testify as to their observations and opinions. 1 Thus, there would be no lack of evidence to justify a jury conviction on the driving-while-under-the-influence charge. However, this is also a prosecution for driving with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. Stavish
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 19 Agosto 2015
    ...dismisses DWI charges, even when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution's case”); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353, 222 N.W.2d 345, 347 (1974) (holding that a pretrial order suppressing the results of an alcohol concentration test was appealable by the State ......
  • State v. Nolting
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 1 Abril 1977
    ...Minn. 399, 138 N.W.2d 46 (1965); or testify that an individual staggered and slurred his speech to show intoxication, State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 222 N.W.2d 345 (1974); or testify as to the speed of an automobile, Daugherty v. May Brothers Co., 265 Minn. 310, 121 N.W.2d 594 (1963); or te......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1983
    ...result of the suppression order be such as to terminate the prosecution effectively or to handicap it substantially. State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 222 N.W.2d 345 (1974); State v. Collins, supra, 24 Ohio St.2d at 109-10, 265 N.E.2d 261; Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, supra, 411 Pa. at 63-64, 190 ......
  • State v. Underdahl, No. A07-2293.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 2009
    ...dismisses DWI charges, even when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution's case. See State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353, 222 N.W.2d 345, 347 (1974). In Hicks, a pretrial order suppressed the results of a blood alcohol test in criminal charges of driving while un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT