Cited by

The law makes it a crime 3 to support her argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying her requested jury instruction.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the [defendant’s] words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

actual unwillingness to participate in the testing 7 process.” 1 rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(“[I]ntent generally must be proved by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(“[I]ntent generally must be proved by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

To sustain a conviction for refusing to submit to chemical testing under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(1) (2022), “[a]ctual unwillingness to submit to testing must be proved.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

102 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

-02 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

5 test by presenting evidence of “any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Schmeichel argues that this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

-02 (Minn. App. 2010) (concluding sufficient circumstantial evidence supported determination appellant refused to submit to a test by conduct when she had been given between six and fifteen glasses of water and made three attempts to produce urine sample over three hours), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

pital” and “demanded to be taken to jail.” The state argues that “[o]ne cannot take a test 8 at the hospital if one is not at the hospital,” which directly proves Hoglund’s “actual unwillingness.” “Our previous decisions involving the criminal test-refusal statute have consistently recognized the legitimacy of circumstantial evidence in establishing a defendant’s intent.” -02 (Minn. App. 2010) rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The state may prove refusal of a chemical breath test through a direct refusal or “any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” -02 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

To be guilty of refusal to submit to a chemical test, the state must prove an “[a]ctual unwillingness to submit to testing.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

5 guilty of first-degree refusal to submit to a chemical test, the state had to prove, among other elements, “[a]ctual unwillingness to submit to testing.” d 98, 101 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(stating that “refusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances”) (emphasis added), rev. denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).

-02 (Minn. App. 2010) , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingn ess to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The test-refusal statute does not require a “verbal refusal.” d 98, 101 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

see also State, (noting that officers should not have to “ascertain whether or not the driver is making a good -faith effort to produce a sample”) .

-02 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).

26, 2003); (stating that refusal may be done verbally or through conduct), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Platt argues that the state failed to prove that his test refusal was a “volitional act” done with an “actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances,” -02 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Mar.

26, 2003); see also State v. Ferrier , (stating refusal may be done verbally or through conduct), review denied (Minn. Mar.

d 98, 101-02 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Refusal 8 is “[a]ctual unwillingness to submit to testing.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words 6 and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

State, Dep’t of Highways v. Lauseng , -27 (Minn. 1971) (failure to produce urine sample constitutes test refusal); -03 (Minn. App. 2010) (same), review denied (Minn. Mar.

under section 169A.51.” “[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Refusal is determined by looking at “the driver’s words and actions in light 4 of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Ferrier , review denied (Minn. Mar.

d 98, 101-02 (Minn. App. 2010) (recognizing the legitimacy of circumstantial evidence to establish intent in a test-refusal case), review denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

See State v. Ferrier , review denied (Minn. Mar.

generally must be proved ‘by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’” ().

review denied (Minn. Mar.

“[R]efusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (affirming conviction of criminal refusal to submit to chemical testing), review denied (Minn. Mar.