State v. Junes

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Junes

350 N.W.2d 496, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3285

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 3, 1984

DocketNo. C4-83-1702

StatusPublished

This text of 350 N.W.2d 496 (State v. Junes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Junes, 350 N.W.2d 496, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

Harry Reynold Junes appeals his conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (Supp.1983). We affirm.

FACTS

On June 12, 1983, appellant Harry Junes was stopped after an officer observed the high-beam headlights were on on Junes’ automobile, that Junes had turned without using a turn signal, and had weaved over the center-line several times. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Junes’ breath and noticed Junes’ face was flushed and his eyes watery. Junes did poorly in field sobriety tests. He was arrested and given a breathalyzer test which indicated .15 alcohol concentration. Junes waived his right to an attorney and a jury trial. He was convicted of driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (Supp.1983).

ISSUE

Is the evidence sufficient to convict appellant?

ANALYSIS

Junes, acting pro se, challenges his conviction, contending:

(1) The arresting officer did not employ the breathalyzer test accurately. The record indicates the officer was a licensed breathalyzer operator who performed all of the operational checklists to ensure the accuracy of the test results.

(2) The officer lacked sufficient reason to arrest him. The record provides ample support for the arrest.

(3) A preliminary screening test of breath was not given. Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 6 (1982) does not make such test mandatory.

(4) The testimony of the officer was not credible because he failed to precisely recollect the events surrounding the arrest. The officer’s credibility was a matter for the trial court.

(5) The breathalyzer test results are invalid because they could be altered. Nothing in the record indicates either alteration or the tests to be invalid.

(6) A copy of the Implied Consent Advisory was not given him at the time the breath test was requested. Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2 (Supp.1983) does not require such delivery.

Junes’ other contentions are without merit.

[498]*498DECISION

Appellant’s conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

Harry Reynold Junes appeals his conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (Supp.1983). We affirm.

FACTS

On June 12, 1983, appellant Harry Junes was stopped after an officer observed the high-beam headlights were on on Junes’ automobile, that Junes had turned without using a turn signal, and had weaved over the center-line several times. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Junes’ breath and noticed Junes’ face was flushed and his eyes watery. Junes did poorly in field sobriety tests. He was arrested and given a breathalyzer test which indicated .15 alcohol concentration. Junes waived his right to an attorney and a jury trial. He was convicted of driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d) (Supp.1983).

ISSUE

Is the evidence sufficient to convict appellant?

ANALYSIS

Junes, acting pro se, challenges his conviction, contending:

(1) The arresting officer did not employ the breathalyzer test accurately. The record indicates the officer was a licensed breathalyzer operator who performed all of the operational checklists to ensure the accuracy of the test results.

(2) The officer lacked sufficient reason to arrest him. The record provides ample support for the arrest.

(3) A preliminary screening test of breath was not given. Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 6 (1982) does not make such test mandatory.

(4) The testimony of the officer was not credible because he failed to precisely recollect the events surrounding the arrest. The officer’s credibility was a matter for the trial court.

(5) The breathalyzer test results are invalid because they could be altered. Nothing in the record indicates either alteration or the tests to be invalid.

(6) A copy of the Implied Consent Advisory was not given him at the time the breath test was requested. Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2 (Supp.1983) does not require such delivery.

Junes’ other contentions are without merit.

[498]*498DECISION

Appellant’s conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 N.W.2d 496, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-junes-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack