Opinion
A20-0390
02-09-2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Abdullahi Abdiqadir Noor, Appellant.
ORDER OPINION
Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-18-3923 Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Abdullahi Abdiqadir Noor was charged with one count of driving while under the influence of a controlled substance based on the arresting officer's observations of Noor's poor driving and his failing of two field sobriety tests. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(2) (2016). A urine sample confirmed the presence of AB-FUBINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. Subsequently, the state amended its complaint to include one count of driving while having any amount of a Schedule I or II controlled substance in the body. Id., subd. 1(7) (2016).
2. Prior to trial, Noor moved the district court to interpret Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), as requiring the state to prove that Noor knew of the presence of AB-FUBINACA in his system while driving. In the alternative, Noor asked the district court to conclude that the application of the statute violates his substantive due-process rights.
3. The district court denied Noor's motions. In doing so, the district court determined that although most crimes have an implicit element of mens rea, public-welfare offenses such as driving while under the influence allow for strict criminal liability without proof of any specific mental state. The district court also concluded that Noor's substantive due-process rights had not been violated because Minnesota does not recognize the involuntary consumption of illegal narcotics as a valid defense to a charge of driving while under the influence.
4. A jury found Noor guilty of driving while having any amount of a Schedule I or II controlled substance in the body and not guilty of driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Noor to 46 months' imprisonment with credit for 149 days already served, followed by a five-year conditional-release term.
5. Noor appeals the district court's denial of his motions and introduces a new theory in support of his substantive due-process claim. We review a district court's interpretation of a statute de novo. Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016). But we generally do not review "the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory." Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
6. Noor claims that a conviction for driving with any amount of a Schedule I or II controlled substance in the body must be reversed where the state fails to prove that the operator knew the substance was in his body. But we rejected this argument in State v. Schwartz, 943 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. App. 2020), review granted (Minn. June 30, 2020). There we concluded that Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), does not require proof that a motor-vehicle operator knew or had reason to know that a controlled substance was in his body. Schwartz, 943 N.W.2d at 417. Applying the holding in Schwartz, we conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), does not include a mens rea requirement and denied Noor's motion. Noor recognizes this precedent, but argues that it is not controlling because the Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently granted review. Although we acknowledge that Schwartz is pending review by the supreme court, we nevertheless decline Noor's invitation to depart from our decision in that matter.
7. Noor's second argument on appeal is that the "any amount" provision of the statute violates his right to substantive due process because it is overinclusive. He asserts that the provision is overinclusive because it "includes synthetic cannabinoids and their metabolites but excludes marijuana and THC and their metabolites, even though Minnesota law treats synthetic and natural cannabinoids as equivalents." But Noor failed to make this particular argument in district court. Despite this, Noor contends in his reply brief that his new theory of how the provision violates his substantive due-process rights is in fact a "refined" version of his previous argument, which this court can consider. We do not find this argument persuasive.
8. Generally, we will not address arguments not argued before and considered by the district court. Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582. We may consider a new argument on appeal, but are not required to do so. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. Here, Noor's new argument was not raised in briefing before the district court and was not "implicit in" Noor's original argument. Watson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 566 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted). Reviewing Noor's argument on appeal would also require this court to make findings of fact involving an issue that the district court never had a chance to address. As such, we decline to consider it here. Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Respondent's motion to strike a portion of appellant's brief is denied as unnecessary.
3. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: February 9, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Lucinda E. Jesson