Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit, 373 N.W.2d 290.

48 citing documents.

Melissa Ann Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2026
Melissa Ann Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2026
We have held that successful performance on dexterity tests has probative value but does not have “in and of [itself], any inherent ‘unimpeachable’ character.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
as an example of a case where appellant’s conviction was reversed for insufficient evidence after this court applied the circumstantial- evidence test.
S tate of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Joseph Harrison Baynes, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lastly, we reject Baynes’s
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
He focuses on the lack of evidence of poor driving conduct and, he argues that there is a rational hypothesis based on the circumstances proved that his ability or capacity to drive was not impaired.
Melissa Ann Lorsung, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
–93 (Minn. 1985); 7 Mesenburg v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jesse Bruce Jensen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellant next relies on State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit , , 293 (Minn. 1985), for the proposition that, while the odor of alcohol might indicate impairment, it does not resolve whether a person was drinking alcohol to establish probable cause.
Henry James Johnson, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
establishes “that speeding [is] not a reliable indicia of intoxication because it [is] not uncommon for sober drivers to speed as well.” But Elmourabit is inapplicable because it relates to the sufficiency of evidence at trial necessary for a criminal DWI conviction, not whether an officer had
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
where the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction for driving while impaired.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 290, 294 (Minn. 1985).
Justin Robert Price, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4 (Minn. 1992), including “outward manifestations of intoxication.” State v. Elmourabit , .
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol To prove this offense, the state was required to show that Kingsbury was “so affected by intoxicating liquor as not to possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A person is under the influence when he is so affected by alcohol “as not to possess that clearness of intellect and control of himself that he otherwise would have.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-93 (Minn.1985) (considering sufficiency of evidence in conviction of DWI when evidence included opinion testimony of two police officers that defendant was under the influence of alcohol); State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 354 , (holding that absence of one indicator of intoxication does n
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
in which the supreme court affirmed our reversal of Elmourabit’s conviction of driving while impaired, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that charge.
State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Horning 535 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1995
State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
however, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in discussing the proper evidentiary weight to assign videotaped dexterity or sobriety tests, found that success on dexterity tests is not determinative because a person may be under the influence even though “he may attend to his business and may not give any outward
State v. Shepard 481 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1992
State v. Shepard 481 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1992
State v. Shepard 473 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Shepard 473 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed this court’s decision which *322 found insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict of guilt.
State v. Teske 390 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Teske 390 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(defendant found guilty of D.W.I., no blood alcohol test was given).