State v. Koppi
798 N.W.2d 358
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Koppi was charged with second-degree test refusal under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2010).
- Officer Hunter stopped Koppi for speeding (66 in a 55) and observed bloodshot, glossy eyes and a slight odor of alcohol.
- Koppi declined field sobriety tests and gave indications of agitation during the encounter.
- At the police station, Koppi asked to contact an attorney after receiving the Implied Consent Advisory; he spent about 45 minutes attempting to contact attorneys and his wife, obtaining reading glasses, and reviewing phone books.
- Officer Hunter asked Koppi for a decision on testing; Koppi repeatedly requested more time to contact counsel and ultimately did not submit to testing.
- The district court instructed the jury with a subjectively framed probable cause standard (CRIMJIG 29.28, 2008), and told the jury the court had decided Koppi had a reasonable time to consult an attorney, over Koppi’s objection. The jury found Koppi guilty of test refusal and not guilty of DWI; Koppi appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probable cause instruction was erroneous | Koppi | Koppi | Erroneous; district court abused discretion |
| Whether the erroneous probable cause instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Koppi | Koppi | Not harmless; reversal required |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by deciding as a matter of law Koppi had time to contact an attorney | Koppi | Koppi | Waived; not considered on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38 (Minn. 1972) (probable cause delegated to objective, totality-of-circumstances standard)
- State v. Olson, 436 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. 1989) (probable cause requires reasonable officer’s perspective; objective inquiry)
- State v. Speak, 389 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1983) (reasonableness of officer's belief; objective basis for probable cause)
- State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. 1978) (probable cause as a practical, nontechnical standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause based on totality of the circumstances)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (distinction between probable cause and guilt standards)
- State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 2006) (harmless error review standard for instructional errors)
- State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 (Minn. 1962) (harmless error framework for instructional error situations)
- State v. Blasus, 445 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1989) (prejudice assessment in instructional-error cases)
- State v. Hayes, 431 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 1988) (harmless-error analysis for jury instructions)