Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hicks, 222 N.W.2d 345.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Schultz, -48 (Minn. 1974), in which the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that excluding a blood-alcohol test did not critically impact the state’s DWI case.
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
301 Minn. 350, 353, - 48 (1974).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]raditionally the foundation required before an opinion regarding intoxication can be given has been testimony concerning observation of manner of walking and standing, manner of speech, appearances of eyes and face, and odor, if any, upon such person’s breath.” (quoting State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353, ).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353, ).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
(holding that “an order that dismisses DWI charges, even when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution’s case”); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353 , (holding that a pretrial order suppressing the results of an alcohol concentration test was appealable by the State because the order prevented successful prosecution for the charged offense of driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or greater, even though other charges were no
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-93 (Minn.1985) (considering sufficiency of evidence in conviction of DWI when evidence included opinion testimony of two police officers that defendant was under the influence of alcohol); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 354 , (holding that absence of one indicator of intoxication does not render layperson’s observations insufficient to offer opinion testimony about defendant’s intoxication); State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 80, 82 , -81 (1963) (holding sufficient foundation exists for po
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
See Underdahl, d at 684 (noting that “an order that dismisses DWI charges, even when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution’s case”); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 352-53 , (concluding that an order preventing the chance of a successful prosecution on one charge was sufficient to allow an appeal even though the other charges were not affected).
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
See State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353
State v. Grohoski 390 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Grohoski 390 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The state cites State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350 , as controlling on this issue.
State v. Mariner 366 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Mariner 366 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The evidence is sufficient to establish that Mariner was in physical control of the vehicle, and was under the influence, see State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Keane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Keane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hicks, Id., [ 301 Minn. 350 ] d [345] at 348 [1974].
Kozak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
citing State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Martin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Martin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Able v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Able v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Johnson, d at 4-5 ; State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Johnson v. State, Department of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1984
Johnson v. State, Department of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1984
In State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 353-54 , -48 (1974), we stated: In numerous cases involving varying fact situations, this court has dealt with the issue of adequacy of foundation for a lay person’s opinion concerning whether another person at a certain time was intoxicated or under the influence.
Kunz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 349 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kunz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 349 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. *80 350
Holtz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 340 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Holtz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 340 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350
Romero v. City of Richfield 253 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
Romero v. City of Richfield 253 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
In a number of cases, among them State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350 , we have stated that the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to admit opinion evidence of intoxication.
State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
3 For example, a witness may identify a suspect even though, he can not recall the specific features of his face or person, State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , or testify that an individual staggered and slurred his speech tó show intoxication, State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350 , or testify as to the speed of an automobile, Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 265 Minn. 310 , or testify as to the mental condition of testator, In re Estate of Jenks, 291 Minn. 138
State v. Schneider 249 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1977
State v. Schneider 249 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1977
Compare State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350 , with Bisbee v. Rupert, 306 Minn. 39