One Minnesota felony DWI appeal is unsuccessful

No matter the case, there is generally hope when it comes to a DUI defense. Even if the suspect is a supposed repeat offender, he deserves a vigilant defense against the limitations that a drunk driving conviction can place on his life.

One Minnesota man recently exercised his persistence in defending his name by appealing a DWI conviction – his 12th conviction. According to reports, however, persistence didn’t pay off this time around. The man remains to be found guilty of drunk driving and driving with a revoked license.

The charges against the Minnesota man stem from a late-night incident during which an officer claims he caught the appellant sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with its lights on in a parking lot. The officer claims there was sufficient reason to put the suspect through sobriety tests, which he reportedly failed. He was charged with and later convicted of two felony DWI counts. He also had a revoked license at the time and was, therefore, convicted of driving after cancellation (DAC.)

His appeal was based on the argument that the prosecution had misled the jury in regards to reasonable doubt. He and his defense attorney also argued that the officer couldn’t prove that the appellant had operated the motor vehicle on the night he was arrested.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed its convictions against the appellant. The court believes that the jury understood the general idea of reasonable doubt in regards to its verdict and that the prosecution didn’t taint the outcome of the case.

As for whether it could be proven that the appellant was drinking and driving on the night of the arrest, the court ruled that the following points supported the guilty verdict: the appellant was behind the wheel of the car; the key was reportedly in the ignition; the headlights were on; he reportedly didn’t tell the officer during the time of the arrest that he hadn’t been driving.

With the guilty convictions intact, the Minnesota man will serve his sentence of 79 months in prison, including 365 days for the DAC conviction.

Source

Leagle: “State v. Butcher,” Aug. 15, 2011

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Can You Be Charged With Drug Possession if the Drugs Aren’t Yours in Minnesota?

You can be charged with drug possession if the drugs aren’t yours in Minnesota. This is one of the most misunderstood areas of criminal law. Many people assume that if they did not own or physically hold the drugs, they cannot be charged. In reality, Minnesota law allows prosecutors to pursue charges based on something called constructive possession.

What Happens if You Contact the Alleged Victim After Charges Are Filed in Minnesota?

If you contact the alleged victim after charges are filed in Minnesota, you may be putting your case, your freedom, and your future at risk. Once criminal charges are filed, courts often impose strict no-contact conditions, either through bail conditions, release orders, or protective orders. Violating those conditions can lead to additional criminal charges, even if your intent was harmless.

Accused of Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent in Minnesota? What to Know

Being accused of sharing intimate images without consent in Minnesota can have consequences that go far beyond the criminal justice system. These cases often involve allegations tied to digital communication, private relationships, and intent, which makes them both legally complex and highly sensitive.