Cited by

(noting the district court “act[s] as a gatekeeper for the admissibility of evidence”); (“The jury is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to their testimony.”).

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

“The term ‘physical control’ is more comprehensive than either the term to ‘drive’ or to ‘operate.’” State v. Fleck

determine[] which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to their testimony.”

“Physical control” has a broad definition and “is meant to cover situations when an intoxicated person ‘is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the [vehicle], without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.’” ().

Courts consider several factors when determining whether a driver exercised physical control over a vehicle, including: “the person’s location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle; who owned the vehicle; and the vehicle’s operability.” State v. Fleck

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.” d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010) (emphasis added).

The jury is assumed to “disbelieve[] any evidence contrary to the verdict.”

The fact-finder “is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to their testimony.”

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the me ans to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

For example, “[p]hysical control is meant to cover situations when an intoxicated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.” State v. Fleck , (quotation omitted).

6 Minnesota law provides that it is unlawful for “‘ any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle’ while under the influence of alcohol.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd.

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the opera ting controls of the vehicle.” State v. Fleck , d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010).

A person has physical control if he (1) “has the means to initiate any movement of [the] vehicle” and (2) “is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

And although this term is not intended to encompass intoxicated passengers, the record does not support the assertion that the prosecutor argued that Reed would be guilty of a DWI even if she was a passenger.

See State v. Fleck , (stating that the factfinder “is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Minnesota statutes do not define physical control, but Minnesot a courts have explained that “a person is in ph ysical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

See State v. Fleck , (“The [fact -finder] is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.”).

State v. Leake , , 319 (Minn. 2005) ; see also State v. Fleck , , 236 (Minn. 2010) ("The [factfinder] is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.").

Minnesota statutes do not define physical control, but Minnesota courts have held that “a person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.” State v. 6 Fleck

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehic le.” State v. Fleck

We determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict.”

Under Minnesota’s implied-consent law, the state may revoke a person’s license if he is in physical control of a vehicle in order to “deter intoxicated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers and to act as a preventive measure to enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes.” (quotation omitted).

See, appeal docketed (U.S. June 16, 2015)

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

“[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if [s]he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and [s]he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we “must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict.”