State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel, A16-53

On March 8, 2015, C.L. heard a snowmobile approach her home and spoke with Vansickel from inside; she called 911 after he refused to leave.
Deputy Payment, responding minutes later, followed fresh snowmobile tracks and smelled exhaust leading to Vansickel’s residence; tracks ended at the residence.
Deputy found Vansickel standing 15–20 feet from a warm, dripping snowmobile; observed bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred and rambling speech, unsteadiness, and a strong odor of alcohol.
Vansickel refused field sobriety tests, admitted he was drunk, was arrested, and later told booking officers he would lie and say he did not drive the snowmobile; he then submitted to a breath test that read 0.21.
Charged with two counts of first‑degree DWI (impairment and over .08) based on operation of a snowmobile; convicted by a jury of both counts, sentenced (36 months stayed), and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Vansickel operated the snowmobile while impaired	State: admission plus circumstantial evidence show operation while intoxicated	Vansickel: evidence insufficient to prove he operated or was in physical control when intoxicated	Conviction affirmed—defendant’s admissions were direct evidence and corroborated by circumstantial facts
Multiple convictions for same act (double jeopardy/included offense)	State: two statutory counts validly charged	Vansickel: both DWI counts arose from one act and cannot yield multiple convictions	Court held only one conviction was adjudicated and sentenced; clerical error in warrant listing both counts remanded for correction

State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Sam, 859 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. App. 2015) (heightened review for convictions relying on circumstantial evidence)
Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 2004) (definition/distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Vaughn, 361 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1985) (confession defined and its evidentiary effect)
State v. Weber, 137 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 1965) (confession as direct evidence of guilt)
State v. Battin, 474 N.W.2d 427 (Minn. App. 1991) (confession can sustain conviction)
State v. Jackson, 363 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1985) (statute bars multiple convictions for included offenses from single behavioral incident)
State v. Staloch, 643 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. App. 2002) (oral sentence controls over inconsistent written order)
State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999) (judgment of conviction should include only the offense adjudicated guilty)