Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1985

State v. Decker

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Decided July 23, 1985 · Foley, Leslie, Popovich, Waived

371 N.W.2d 256; 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4410 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Kevin W. Eide, Ralph W. Corey, Ea-gan, for respondent., Darrel A. Baska, Eagan, for appellant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2015, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Minn. Stat. § 169.121

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Ronnebaum (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

FACTS

Eagan Police Officer Kevin Putt stopped appellant Lawrence Decker around 12:30 a.m. on March 8, 1984, after observing Decker’s car veer over the center line and travel about 65 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone. Putt smelled a moderate amount of alcohol on Decker’s breath and observed that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Decker was arrested and at the police station consented to a urine sample. The sample produced an alcohol concentration of .11 *257grams per 67 milliliters of urine. Putt testified that in his opinion Decker was under the influence.

Decker was convicted by a jury of speeding and driving while under the influence, Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(a) (1984) and driving with an alcohol concentration over .10, Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(d). On appeal Decker contends the evidence was insufficient to support his D.W.I. convictions.

DECISION

Under well-established principles of appellate review of criminal convictions, see State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 1981), the record supports appellant’s convictions. The State need not establish the impairment of gross motor and dexterity skills to prove a person is under the influence. State v. Graham, 176 Minn. 164, 222 N.W. 909 (1929); State v. Duemke, 352 N.W.2d 427 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The appellant’s expert, who testified the urine sample was invalid, was contradicted by the State’s expert, whose opinion had a reasonable basis in fact. We need not address appellant’s arguments regarding the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 2 (1984) because we will not review matters not properly raised at the trial court level and raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Packard, 366 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.