Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
before he strikes.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
before [they] strike[].” (quotation omitted).
-
A23-1811
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Physical control” addresses incidents when an intoxicated person “is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the [vehicle], without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger.” (Minn .
- State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“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.’” ().
- Jennifer Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Jennifer Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Generally, physical control is meant to cover situations in which “an inebriated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.”
-
Jack Richard Moore, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thus, “physical control” encompasses more than “drive” or “operate.”
-
State of Minnesota,
Minn. 2023
(“Ordinarily, instructions drawing attention to particular kinds of evidence should be avoided in criminal cases.”).
-
Ronald Kenneth Maas, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thus, “physical control” encompasses more than “drive” or “operate.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Physical control” is broadly construed to include situations in which an impaired person is found “under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, 6 might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Physical control is “more comprehensive than either ‘drive’ or ‘operate.’” ().
-
Jerrod Malachy Feist, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The term “physical control” is “given the broadest possible effect” in order to “deter inebriated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
e. More comprehensive than ei ther “driving” or “operating,” the most inclusive theory for DWI liability is “physical control”—a broa d term intended to address a situation in which an impaired person is found “under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
Kevin David Jante, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
is friend’s house, Derik Burmeister (Burmeister), “as well as some local bars.” Appellant 1 While not relevant to the district court’s decision, this court has found physical control where the vehicle was inoperable at the time police arrived; “[t]he State stressed the disabilities in these three cases were all temporary….” .
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- Jon Dennis LaRoque, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 (observing that “physical control” is intended to apply when an inebriated person might convert a parked car into danger).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
when: (1) the person is under the influence of alcohol[.]”); (stating that “physical control” is more comprehensive than either “drive” or “operate” and that the term is to be given the broadest possible effect to deter inebriated persons from getting into v ehicles except as passengers).
-
Kenneth Wayne Carlson, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The physical control aspect of the statute is intended “as a preventive measure to deter the drunk driver from again driving” and “should be given the broadest possible effect.” State v. Starfield , -37 (Minn. 1992) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–39 (Minn. 1992) (concluding that whether temporary inoperability of a car precludes a defendant from being in “physical control” of a vehicle is a fact question for the jury).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Starfield , (stating that defendant may be convicted of DWI based on circumstantial evidence).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Ralph Ian Richardson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-39 (Minn. 1992) (stating that driver was in physical control of a vehicle stuck in a ditch); Abeln v. Comm’r of Pub.
- State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that jury instructions should not draw attention to particular kinds of evidence or single out a particular piece of evidence).
- Matt Anthony Haeg v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Matt Anthony Haeg v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 (stating that, in the absence of direct evidence, “there .
- Craig Ecker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Craig Ecker v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The term ‘physical control’ is more comprehensive than either ‘drive’ or ‘operate.’”
- Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Antone William Guimont v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The term ‘physical control’ is more comprehensive than either ‘drive’ or ‘operate.’” d 834, 836 (Minn. 1992).
- Kayla Lashawn Berres v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Kayla Lashawn Berres v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to deter inebriated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court instructed the jury to first independently determine whether 1 See, (defendant in physical control of car stuck in ditch with keys in driver’s pocket); State, Dep’t of Pub.
- Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The term ‘physical control’ is more comprehensive than either ‘drive’ or ‘operate.’”
- Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
- State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Fleck
777 N.W.2d 233
Minn. 2010
Physical 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 763 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2009