Court Opinion

ID: 9695515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:21:25.66985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.660080
License: Public Domain

MEYER, Justice
(dissenting).
DISSENT
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the court of appeals, but on different grounds.
The majority opinion focuses on the issue as it was framed by the court of appeals: Were Netland’s due process rights violated because she was not given a meaningful opportunity to obey the law? The majority should not decide a constitutional question when a ruling under the interpretation of a statute will answer the question of whether Netland refused to submit to a chemical test. See State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922, 926 (Minn.2006); In re Senty-Haugen, 583 N.W.2d 266, 269 n. 3 (Minn.1998) (“It is well-settled law that courts should not reach constitutional issues if matters can be resolved otherwise.”). I would rely on the statutory framework in our driving while impaired and implied consent laws to conclude that Netland did not criminally refuse to submit to a chemical test and, therefore, her conviction must be reversed.
Netland’s conviction rests on whether her actions constitute a criminal test “refusal” under Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2008). Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that is reviewed de novo. State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn.2007). When interpreting a statute, the goal is “to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008). The best method of divining the legislature’s intention is to rely on the plain language of the statute. State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 350-51 (Minn.2003). When the language is clear, we are bound to give effect to that language. Id. at 351 (citing State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 156-57 (Minn.2000)). If a criminal law is ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires us to construe the law narrowly. State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141, 148 (Minn.2007) (citing State v. Zeimet, 696 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn.2005)).
Our legislature has set out that any person who drives a motor vehicle within this state consents to a blood, breath, or urine chemical test to determine the presence of alcohol, if probable cause for driving while impaired exists. Minn.Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 1 (2008). Two distinct sanctions for refusing to submit to a chemical test have been set out by statute: a penalty for civil test refusal, and a penalty for criminal test refusal. The consequence for civil test refusal is the revocation of a person’s license to drive. Id. § 169A.52, subd. 3 (2008). The penalties provided for a criminal test refusal are the same as those for impaired driving in the first, second, or third degree — imprisonment, fines, and license revocation. Id. § 169A.20; see id. §§ 169A.24-.276, 169A.54. A review of Netland’s conviction triggers one question: what constitutes a criminal test refusal?
The criminal driving while impaired statute states:
It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test of the person’s blood, breath, or urine under section 169A.51 (chemical tests for intoxication), or 169A.52 (test refusal or failure; revocation of license).
Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2. The statute does not define the word “refuse.” The statute does, however, reference sections 169A.51, the chemical tests for intoxication statute, and 169A.52, the civil penalty for chemical test refusal. I therefore look to those statutes to see how they *216inform the definition of “refusal” under the criminal test refusal statute.
Chemical tests for intoxication under both refusal statutes are governed by Minn.Stat. § 169A.51. This section states that any person who drives a motor vehicle in this state consents “to a chemical test of that person’s blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol.” Id., subd. 1. The statute requires officers who request an individual to submit to a chemical test to give an implied consent advisory, id., subd. 2, and lists several other conditions of the chemical test, such as who is qualified to administer a blood test, see id., subd. 7.
The statute also sets out the administrative procedures of the chemical test. Section 169A.51, subd. 3, states that the officer “may direct whether the test is of blood, breath, or urine.” The subdivision says that action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if an alternative test was offered, and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if an alternative test was offered. Id. Similarly, a blood test or a urine test may be required after a breath test if there is probable cause to believe that the individual has used a controlled substance, but action can again be taken after a blood or urine test refusal only if the other type of test was offered. Id., subd. 4.
These administrative procedures delineate what qualifies as an adequate breath test sample using a breath test instrument. Id., subd. 5. Subdivision 5 contains several subparts that specify certain circumstances of refusal, stating:
(c)For purposes of section 169A.52 (revocation of license for test failure or refusal) ... failure of a person to provide two separate, adequate breath samples in the proper sequence constitutes a refusal.
(d) For purposes of section 169A.52 (revocation of license for test failure or refusal) ... a breath test consisting of two separate, adequate breath samples within 0.02 alcohol concentration is acceptable. A breath test consisting of two separate, adequate breath samples failing to meet this criterion is deficient.
(e) If the first breath test is deficient, as defined by paragraph (d), a second breath test must be administered.
(f) Two deficient breath tests, as defined by paragraph (d), constitute a refusal.
The criminal test refusal statute also references section 169A.52. That section tells police officers how to report a test refusal or failure and allows officers to obtain a test despite a refusal if there is probable cause to believe criminal vehicular homicide has occurred. Id. § 169A.52, subds. 1, 2. Most of the section delineates the procedures and consequences surrounding a civil chemical test refusal or failure. Id., subds. 3-8. License revocation is generally the civil punishment for test refusal or failure. Id.
Although section 169A.20, subd. 2, references both sections 169A.51 and 169A.52, it is silent as to what parts of those sections should be incorporated into the criminal test refusal statute. Some components of those sections would not make sense if incorporated into criminal test refusal; the most obvious example is the detailed procedures and consequences for a civil test refusal. See Minn.Stat. § 169A.52. Several other components could transfer more easily. In section 169A.51, for example, the requirements for an implied-consent advisory, for determining the type of test, and for conducting a blood test could also be required under the criminal test refusal statute. In section 169A.52, the subdivision that allows an officer to automatically *217obtain a test on suspicion of vehicular homicide could also be applied to criminal test refusal.
Only one subdivision of the chemical tests for intoxication statute is expressly excluded from being incorporated into the criminal test refusal statute. Section 169A.51, subd. 5(c) and (d), clearly state that in those provisions, an inadequate or deficient breath sample is a refusal only “for the purposes of 169A.52,” the civil test refusal penalty. Under the plain wording of the chemical tests for intoxication statute, the legislature did not extend criminal liability to “refusals” based on inadequate breath samples or deficient breath tests.
Beyond this, the definition for criminal test refusal has not been well articulated by the legislature — the criminal statute is silent regarding whether criminal consequences exist when an individual refuses only to take a breath test. The statute is also silent as to what constitutes a breath test refusal that violates the criminal refusal statute. The clear exclusion of inadequate or deficient breath tests further muddles the definition of criminal refusal: while an inadequate or deficient breath test does not constitute criminal refusal, the statute does not speak to the criminal implications of an individual’s inability or unwillingness to submit to a breath test.
Therefore, I would submit that the meaning of refusal under the criminal statute is ambiguous. Ambiguous criminal statutes are interpreted in congruence with the rule of lenity, which posits that “ ‘ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity’ towards the defendant.” State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Minn.1996) (citations omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds. In considering both the limiting language of section 169A.51, subd. 5(c) and (d), and the rule of lenity, I conclude that the criminal refusal statute must be narrowly read to require the availability of an alternative testing method if an inadequate breath test sample or deficient breath test is the only evidence of refusal. This is not to say that the officer must offer all three tests to a person in every criminal refusal scenario — the use of the disjunctive word “or” defeats such a reading. See Munger v. State, 749 N.W.2d 335, 338 (Minn.2008).
My interpretation of the test refusal statute instead narrows the issue: whether Netland’s refusal conviction can be upheld when failure to provide an adequate breath test is not considered criminal refusal.1 In reviewing whether the evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction, we are required to “make a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” State v. Brown, 732 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn.2007). The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn.2004).
Even when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence does not support a conviction under the narrow interpretation of the criminal refusal statute I have set forth.2 Officer Hagen ended *218Netland’s chemical test on the basis of Netland’s deficient breath test, and his belief that Netland was trying to manipulate the machine. Netland requested an alternative test from Officer Hagen and then hired a private agency to conduct a urine test. Although the events surrounding her breath test could fall under the civil test refusal penalty, the facts in this case do not contain any evidence of refusal other than inadequate breath samples, a deficient breath test, and testimony that Netland was not trying to provide an adequate sample. An inadequate sample or deficient breath test, which constitutes a refusal under the civil test refusal statute, cannot be the sole basis for a factfinder to also find the criminal test refusal statute was violated — to hold differently would go against the plain wording of the chemical tests for intoxication statute.
I would affirm, on different grounds, the court of appeals’ decision to reverse the district court’s conviction of criminal test refusal.
PAGE, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Meyer.
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Meyer.

. In her appeal to the court of appeals, Net-land argued that the record was insufficient to support her conviction for criminal refusal to submit to a breath test. I reach the statutory interpretation question based on this argument that Netland asserted.

. In a footnote, the court of appeals concluded that Netland had refused under the crimi*218nal test refusal statute. Netland, 742 N.W.2d at 221 n. 5. Reviewing the issue for sufficiency of the evidence, the court concluded that it would have to assume that the jury believed Officer Hagen’s testimony that Netland was attempting to prevent the machine from accurately measuring the alcohol concentration in her breath. Id. This would constitute criminal test refusal as the court of appeals construed the statute, but I have articulated a narrower standard for criminal test refusal than the court of appeals.