Minnesota Supreme Court, 1979

State v. Hart

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 30, 1979 · Peterson, Todd, Yetka

289 N.W.2d 478; 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1753 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and J. Christopher Cuneo, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Richard D. Hodsdon, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Sonya C. Steven, County Atty., Grand Rapids, Kent E. Nyberg, Bovey City Atty., Grand Rapids, for respondent.

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 1985, 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

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Stiles v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

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

TODD, Justice.

Raymond Wesley Hart, Jr. was operating his motorcycle in Bovey, Minnesota, in such a manner as to cause police pursuit. In the ensuing chase, Hart lost control of his motorcycle and was rendered unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where a blood sample was taken at the direction of police officers. He was subsequently convicted of driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of .10 percent based on the test results of the blood sample. His conviction was affirmed by a district court panel, and we granted discretionary review. We affirm.

The issues raised by this appeal are substantially the same as those presented in State Department of Public Safety v. Wiehle, 287 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1979), filed herewith. The only factual difference is that Hart was charged with a misdemeanor, whereas Wiehle was contesting a license revocation proceeding under the Minnesota implied consent law. However, in Wiehle we decided the issues presented as applying to both misdemeanors and implied consent proceedings because of the evidence-gathering nature of the implied consent law. Therefore, based on the rationale of Wiehle, we affirm the conviction of Hart.

Affirmed.

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