Summary
In State v. Schlinger, 299 Minn. 212, 216 N.W.2d 835 (1974), the court declined to overrule Andrews and again held the admission of evidence that a defendant refused a test to be prejudicial error.
Summary of this case from State v. WillisOpinion
No. 44161.
April 5, 1974.
Highway traffic regulation — driving under influence of alcoholic beverage — admission of evidence of refusal to submit to chemical test — effect.
Appeal by Judith C. Schlinger from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Roland J. Faricy, Judge, denying her alternative motion for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial after she was convicted of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Reversed and new trial granted.
Olkon Olkon and Ellis Olkon, for appellant.
R. Scott Davies, City Attorney, and A. Keith Hanzel, Daniel L. Ficker, and Michael T. DeCourcy, Assistant City Attorneys, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
Defendant, found guilty by St. Paul municipal court jury of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, Minn. St. 169.121, 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.