State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina, A15-1853

Background

Molina was charged after a hit-and-run with multiple CVO counts (some alcohol-related), felony DWI, and driving after cancellation following an accident that left a female passenger with severe head injuries.
At the scene officers found the female in the driver’s seat unresponsive; eyewitness B.O. saw a male (matching Molina’s description) exit the driver side, attempt passenger doors, re-enter the driver side, and drive away; Molina and the female were the only occupants reported.
At the hospital Molina was read the Minnesota implied-consent advisory and submitted to a warrantless blood draw; BCA testing showed BAC 0.114.
Molina moved to suppress the BAC evidence arguing coerced consent and lack of a warrant; district court denied suppression without full totality-of-the-circumstances or exigency analysis.
Jury convicted on all eight counts; district court entered convictions on all counts and sentenced Molina to 79 months on the felony DWI; on appeal the court affirmed convictions in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Molina freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw	Molina: advisory included unconstitutional threat (refusal as crime) and consent was not voluntary; suppression required	State: Molina consented so no warrant required; district court relied on statute and consent	Remanded for district court to perform totality-of-circumstances review of voluntariness given Birchfield; suppression possible if consent found invalid
Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw under Minn. Stat. § 169A.51	Molina: no bright-line CVO exception; exigency must be shown and wasn't established	State: relied on statutory language authorizing nonconsensual draw in CVO and district court’s conclusion	Remanded for explicit exigency analysis under McNeely/Stavish/Birchfield; if no exigency and no valid consent, suppress BAC
Sufficiency of evidence that Molina was driving at time of accident	Molina: no direct evidence he drove; circumstantial evidence could equally support that passenger D.M. was driver	State: eyewitness and statements support Molina as driver	Affirmed — direct eyewitness (B.O.) plus corroborating statements and physical evidence permit reasonable juror to conclude Molina was driver beyond reasonable doubt
Whether district court erred by formally entering convictions/sentencing on multiple overlapping offenses (DWI and alcohol-related CVOs)	Molina: DWI was necessarily proved by the alcohol-related CVOs; cannot be adjudicated on both — must vacate DWI or other convictions	State: more severe (DWI) sentence supports adjudicating on DWI	Reversed in part — court must vacate redundant adjudications; district court erred by entering convictions on all counts and must amend warrant of commitment, adjudicating and sentencing only on permissible surviving convictions

Key Cases Cited

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to blood tests on pain of criminal sanction; voluntariness must be judged under totality)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create per se exigency; exigency is fact-specific)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (blood draw is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minnesota: nonconsensual warrantless blood draws in CVO cases require exigent-circumstances analysis post-McNeely)
State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24 (when direct evidence suffices, circumstantial-evidence rules need not be applied)
State v. Jackson, 363 N.W.2d 758 (statute bars multiple convictions under different sections for acts in single behavioral incident)
Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570 (when convicted on more than one charge for same act, court should adjudicate and sentence on only one count)