State v. Carlson
| Decision Date | 12 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41153,41153 |
| Citation | 281 Minn. 564,161 N.W.2d 38 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Robert O. CARLSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order of the municipal court requiring a return to defendant of certain property seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant asks that the appeal be dismissed. The state contends that the order is appealable under the provisions of Minn.St. 632.11 to 632.13 (Ex.Sess.L.1967, c. 7). 1 Section 632.11, subd. 1(3) (Ex.Sess.L.1967, c. 7, § 1, subd. 1(3)), permits the state, in criminal cases, to appeal '(f)rom an order granting the return of property or suppressing evidence * * *,' when the notice of appeal is accompanied by a statement to the effect that the deprivation of the use of the property will weaken, or prevent successful prosecution of, the case. § 632.12 (Ex.Sess.L.1967, § 2).
The appeal is here on the original record of the municipal court, accompanied by typewritten briefs. The record discloses that, on July 5, 1967, a search warrant was issued directing the seizure of allegedly obscene photographs and magazines on the premises of a bookstore owned and operated by defendant, Robert O. Carlson. The state proposed to use the seized material as evidence in prosecutions against defendant and his employee, Melvin Hoyt. On July 20, 1967, Hoyt entered a plea of guilty in municipal court to a charge of selling obscene material. The prosecution against defendant was dismissed by order of the trial court on October 3, 1967. In the latter case, the state offered in evidence a portion of the seized material, but the court refused to admit it on the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant. Thereafter, on October 26, 1967, defendant filed a motion for return of the seized material. We are told by the state's brief that an 'application to the court for 52-count complaint against defendant for attempting to sell obscene materials' was submitted by the state on October 31, 1967. On the same day the court heard defendant's motion for the return of the property and, on November 2, 1967, granted the motion. It is from the order granting the motion that this attempted appeal is taken.
The state contends that until it is deprived of the possession of the seized material under the provisions of Minn.St. 626.21, 2 it has a right to retain it to be used as evidence in another prosecution. We gather from defendant's brief that the new prosecution is in municipal court for a violation of a city ordinance. He contends under authority of State v. Thomas, 279 Minn. 326, 156 N.W.2d 745, that the order in question is not appealable.
Since we do not have the complaint in the proposed criminal action against defendant, we do not know whether the prosecution is in fact based upon a violation of the municipal ordinance or is a prosecution for violation of the state law relating to obscene material. Minn.St. 617.241. The original records of the municipal court consist of three affidavits in support of a search warrant, the search warrant, and an inventory; the notice of motion and affidavit for return of the seized material; the order of November 2, 1967, granting the motion; and an affidavit of the prosecuting attorney which purports to comply with the statement required for appeal under § 632.11, subd. 1(3). This affidavit states that if the state is deprived of the use of the material, the possibility of a successful prosecution in the proposed new action against defendant will be destroyed.
It should be noted that we are asked to pass upon the validity of the court's order of November 2, 1967, which was issued in a proceeding which has been finally determined by dismissal. We do not find from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grigsby, A10–1686.
...unredacted statement is not in the record, making it impossible for us to address this argument on appeal. See State v. Carlson, 281 Minn. 564, 566, 161 N.W.2d 38, 40 (1968) (stating that a “party seeking review has a duty to see that the appellate court is presented with a record which is ......
-
State v. McLeod, No. A04-2404.
...the Spreigl hearing transcript. To review an issue, an appellate court must have a sufficient record. See State v. Carlson, 281 Minn. 564, 566, 161 N.W.2d 38, 40 (1968). To provide the court with a sufficient record, Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2(2), requires the state to file a notice of......
-
Fischer v. Simon
...which is sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary to consider the questions presented." State v. Carlson , 281 Minn. 564, 161 N.W.2d 38, 40 (1968) ; see also Custom Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins , 306 Minn. 571, 238 N.W.2d 608, 609 (1976) ("An appellant has the burden ......
-
State v. Czarnecki
...a record which is sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary to consider the questions presented." State v. Carlson, 161 N.W.2d 38, 40 (Minn. 1968). An appellate court may decline to address an assignment of error if an appellant has failed to provide the transcripts ne......