Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984

State v. Lala

State v. Lala
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 13, 1984 · Simonett
351 N.W.2d 15; 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1397 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Ann Remington, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Norman B. Coleman, Jr., Joel A. Watne, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, Carl Newquist, * Fridley City Atty., Fridley, 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 1997, 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

State v. Lala

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

SIMONETT, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty in district court of violating Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 3 (1982), which converts a misdemeanor DWI offense into a gross misdemeanor DWI offense when the current violation was within 5 years of a “prior conviction” under section 169.121. The “prior conviction” on which the prosecutor relied was a prior juvenile adjudication as a major traffic offender on the basis of a violation of section 169.121. In State v. Leonard, 336 N.W.2d 271, 272 (Minn. 1983), we held “that a prior juvenile adjudication as a ‘major traffic offender’ on the basis of a violation of section 169.121 does not constitute a prior ‘conviction’ within the meaning of section 169.121, subd. 3.” Based on our decision in Leonard, we reduce defendant’s conviction from a gross misdemeanor to a misdemeanor and remand for sentencing, which was stayed pending this appeal.

Affirmed as modified; remanded for sentencing.

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