State v. Kjeseth
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 26
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 2004, Kjeseth pleaded guilty to a felony DWI for test refusal; the other 2004 DWI charge was dismissed.
- In 2011, he was charged with first-degree DWI for impaired driving and for test refusal, plus fleeing a peace officer, with the predicates based on the 2004 felony DWI.
- The district court proposed a jury instruction on enhancement asking whether Kjeseth had a prior felony conviction for DWI or test refusal, which defense objected to as unsupported by the statute.
- The jury was instructed to answer whether the defendant had a previous felony conviction for driving while impaired or refusal to submit to testing.
- The jury found him guilty on all counts and answered yes to the enhancement question; his criminal-history score included the 2004 conviction.
- The district court sentenced him to 66 months, the presumptive sentence for felony DWI with a criminal-history score of five.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the enhancementElement was properly instructed | Kjeseth argues CRIMJIG misstates law by limiting predicates to impaired-driving priors only. | Kjeseth contends test-refusal felony cannot predicate first-degree DWI enhancement. | Yes; the enhancement may be based on either impaired-driving or test-refusal felonies. |
| Whether the criminal-history score was correct | Kjeseth asserts 2004 felony DWI used for enhancement cannot be counted in history score. | Guidelines require prior felonies used for enhancement to be included in criminal history. | Yes; prior felony DWI must be included in the history score. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., 649 N.W.2d 142 (Minn.2002) (district court has broad discretion in jury instructions)
- State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650 (Minn.2007) (instructions must fairly explain the law)
- State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn.2012) (overruled on other grounds)
- State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552 (Minn.2001) (instructions must define the elements of the offense)
- State v. Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d 265 (Minn.1997) (elements of the DWI statutes; de novo review on legal questions)
- State v. Pearson, 633 N.W.2d 81 (Minn.App.2001) (legal interpretation of statute elements)
- State v. Smoot, 737 N.W.2d 849 (Minn.App.2007) (off-point; involving felony murder predicate)
- State v. Zeimet, 696 N.W.2d 791 (Minn.2005) (limits on prior felonies used for enhancement in subdivision 1(1))