State v. Schlinger

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Schlinger

216 N.W.2d 835, 299 Minn. 212, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1447

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 5, 1974

Docket44161

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 216 N.W.2d 835 (State v. Schlinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Schlinger, 216 N.W.2d 835, 299 Minn. 212, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1447 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, found guilty by St. Paul municipal court jury of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, Minn. St. 169.121, *213 appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial. Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting, over objection, evidence that defendant had refused to submit to chemical testing. We believe that this case is indistinguishable on its facts from the recent case of State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), in which we held that in a prosecution under § 169.121 the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting such evidence. Because we cannot distinguish this case and because we are not disposed to overrule the Andrews case, we reverse the lower court’s order and grant defendant a new trial.

Reversed and new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, found guilty by St. Paul municipal court jury of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, Minn. St. 169.121, *213 appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial. Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting, over objection, evidence that defendant had refused to submit to chemical testing. We believe that this case is indistinguishable on its facts from the recent case of State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), in which we held that in a prosecution under § 169.121 the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting such evidence. Because we cannot distinguish this case and because we are not disposed to overrule the Andrews case, we reverse the lower court’s order and grant defendant a new trial.

Reversed and new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W.2d 835, 299 Minn. 212, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schlinger-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack