Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Duemke, 352 N.W.2d 427.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But that standard does not apply where, as here, “the direct evidence on the circumstances of defendant when he was found is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that he was in physical control of the vehicle.”
A23-1811 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 427, 429 (Minn. App. 1984).
Ronald Kenneth Maas, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quoting State v. Duemke , -30 (Minn. App. 1984)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The phrase ‘physical control’ means being in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle.”
Jerrod Malachy Feist, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Safety , and whe n the vehicle was stuck in a snow -filled ditch
Kevin David Jante, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Woodward , (a flat tire); Abeln v. Comm’r of Public Safety , (a dead battery); State v. Duemke , (car stuck in s now-filled ditch).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, adequate information on the topics of circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witnesses, given at the start of the trial, “need not be repeated in final instructions.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Duemke , 2 (Minn. App. 1984) .
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, this court has previously held that adequate preliminary instructions on circumstantial evidence and witness credibility “need not be repeated in final instructions.”
Kayla Lashawn Berres v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kayla Lashawn Berres v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“The phrase ‘physical control’ means being in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle.”).
Snyder v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Snyder v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(alterations in original).
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Flamang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 516 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Flamang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 516 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Safety, and where the vehicle *581 was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
State v. Starfield 481 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1992
State v. Starfield 481 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1992
The court of appeals has found physical control where the vehicle had a flat tire, a dead battery, and where the car was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
State v. Masloski 430 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Masloski 430 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See generally 10A Minnesota Practice, MJIG, 3.2 (1986); (discussing jury instruction on “physical control”).
State v. Woodward 408 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Woodward 408 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Page 386 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Page 386 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
31.02; (contentions on trial procedure cannot be introduced on appeal unless they concern matters of fundamental law and substantially prejudice appellant’s rights).
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Decker 371 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Decker 371 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1985