Cited by

(concluding that officer’s personal observations of defendant’s alcohol impairment was helpful to jury).

ovides that it is a crime for a person to operate a motor vehicle when “the person is under the influence of alcohol.” A person is under the influence of alcohol if he does not possess “that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have” or if he drank enough alcohol that his “ability or capacity to drive was impaired in some way or to some degree.” (quotations omitted).

A person is “under the influence” when she does not “possess that clearness of intellect and control of [herself] that [she] otherwise would have.” ().

To prove Baynes’s guilt of DWI, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baynes was under the influence of alcohol, i.e., that he “[did] not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).

To prove that someone was “under the influence,” the state must establish that the person did not “possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).

“A person is under the influence when a person does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” -88 (Minn. App. 2012) (affirming defendant’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol).

-84 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that an officer’s testimony was not expert testimony where the court did not characterize the testimony as expert testimony, the state made no proffer for expert testimony, neither party referred to the officer as an expert witness, and neither party requested an instruction about

[a] narcotic involved.” 1 An HGN test “detects one’s rapid eye movement.”

15, 2022), officers are not uniquely expert in assessing whether a person’s speech suggests impairment, (holding that an officer’s opinion as to impairment is not “expert” testimony).

see also Source Code, d at 527 (“[T]he government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments .

See State v. Ards , (citing 10A Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 29.10).

1(1) (2018), which provides that it is a crime for a person to drive a motor vehicle when “the person is under the influence of alcohol.” An individual is “under the influence of alcohol” when the person “does not possess the clearness of intellect and control of [herself] that [she] otherwise would have.” (quotatio n omitted).

An individual is said to be under the influence when they “do not posse ss that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” State v. Ards , (quotations omitted).

“A person is under the influence when a person does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).

A person is under the influence of a substance “when a person does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (M inn.

pursuant to training given or approved by the commissioner of public safety or the commissioner’s acting agent.” Minn. Stat. § 634.16 (2018); see also In re Source Code , d at 528 n.3; , 207-08 (Minn. App. 2017)

“A person is under the influence when a person does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).

The state can prove the under-the-influence-of-alcohol element by “showing the amount of liquor consumed (either by witnesses or chemical tests), or by evidence of outward manifestations of intoxication, or by a combination of both methods.” -87 (Minn. App. 2012) (providing that an “alcohol concentration over the legal limit” is a factor to consider under subdivision 1(1)).

(stating that the specialized training and experience of an officer does not convert their testimony based upon personal observations into expert testimony).

See State v. Ards , 10A Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 29.10 (2015).

7 A person is “under the influence” if he “ does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotations omitted).

Rather, as the d istrict court ruled, the statute “moves all issues of reliability from pretrial litigation to the fact-finder at trial.” (stating that once evidence is admitted, the reliability of the test is an issue for the fact-finder); (explaining that the admission of Intoxilyzer breath results without expert testimony did not create an unconstitutional presumption of g

that [t he person] otherwis e would have.” State v. Ards

that [the person] otherwise would have.”

that [the person] otherwise would have.” (quotations omitted).

“[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, ).

“[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.” Id.

-83 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that testimony based on “personal observations” of the defendant is not “expert opinion testimony”).

(stating that the proponent of a chemical test must present a prima facie showing of test reliability and trustworthy administration).

“A person is under the influence when a person does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).