State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: A21-1074
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Lance Jeffery Johnson, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Lance Jeffery Johnson, Appellant.

No. A21-1074

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

June 27, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

St. Louis County District Court File No. 69VI-CR-20-308.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kim Maki, St. Louis County Attorney, Christopher Florey, Assistant County Attorney, Virginia, Minnesota (for respondent).

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Charles F. Clippert, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.

Halbrooks, Judge.^[*]

1

In this direct appeal from a final judgment of conviction for driving while impaired-test refusal, appellant argues that his conviction must be reversed because the district court's jury instructions did not specify which chemical test the state had to prove he refused when he refused both a breath test and a urine test. Appellant also makes additional arguments in a pro se supplemental brief. Because the jury instructions, when read in context, fairly explain the law and because appellant's additional arguments are unavailing, we affirm.

FACTS

After a witness reported concerns about appellant Lance Jeffery Johnson's driving, an officer approached Johnson's vehicle in a parking lot. The officer's body camera was not working. The officer observed Johnson drink from a bottle of what appeared to be liquor, but Johnson placed the bottle under a backpack when the officer knocked on his window. The officer saw that Johnson's eyes were bloodshot and watery and that he was unsteady on his feet. Around this time, a second officer, who was wearing a working body camera, arrived at the scene.

Johnson refused field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for driving while impaired (DWI). At the police station, the first officer read Johnson the breath-test advisory and asked him to provide a sample of his breath. Johnson declined. The first officer, without obtaining a warrant, also asked Johnson to submit to a urine test. He again declined.

2

Johnson was charged with felony DWI-refusal to submit to a breath test in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(1) (2018). He was later additionally charged with felony DWI in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(2) (2018). A jury found Johnson guilty of both charges, but the district court only convicted him of felony DWI- refusal to submit to breath test. The district court sentenced Johnson to 42 months of imprisonment, the presumptive guidelines sentence. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (Supp. 2019). This appeal follows.

DECISION

Johnson argues that his conviction for test refusal must be reversed because the district court's jury instructions did not specify which chemical test the state had to prove Johnson refused when he refused both a breath test and a urine test. Johnson did not object to the jury instructions at trial. Absent a trial objection, we review the district court's jury instructions for plain error. State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012). Under a plain-error analysis, we consider whether the jury instructions contained "an (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant's substantial rights." Id. "If these three prongs . . . are met, we then decide whether we must address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings." Id. (quotation omitted).

When reviewing jury instructions for plain error, appellate courts review them "in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case." Id. (quotation omitted). "[J]ury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of that crime to the jury," but the district court has "broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of jury instructions." Id.

3

(quotations omitted). Appellate courts will not reverse a district court's decision on jury instructions absent an abuse of discretion. Id....