State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 21 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C7-94-569,C7-94-569 |
| Citation | 518 N.W.2d 67 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. David Manuel JONES, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In selected pretrial appeals where critical impact appears questionable, this court may require the state to make a preliminary showing of critical impact before briefing.
2. The state must make a showing of critical impact when appealing an order denying a motion to exclude evidence.
3. When this court requires a preliminary showing of critical impact, the state should present a summary or brief record of its case against the defendant. The state must show that a district court's evidentiary ruling has critical impact; it may not rely on the impact of a hypothetical series of trial rulings that may follow from that pretrial ruling.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., James P. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and Earl E. Maus, Cass County Atty., Walker, for appellant.
Harry E. Eliason, Thuet, Pugh & Rogosheske, South St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by ANDERSON, C.J., and CRIPPEN and PETERSON, JJ.
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
This is a prosecution pretrial appeal from an order denying the state's motion to exclude defense evidence. This court, questioning whether the state can demonstrate that the district court's order will have a critical impact on the outcome of the prosecution, directed the parties to file informal memoranda on the issue. We dismiss the appeal.
Cass County indicted respondent David Manuel Jones for aggravated robbery for allegedly participating in the robbery of the Palace Casino on September 30, 1993. Four other individuals were also indicted for this offense. One of the state's prospective witnesses is Gordon Northbird. Northbird allegedly withdrew from the conspiracy to rob the Palace Casino at some point before the robbery.
The state filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of another offense that the defense claims Northbird committed. This offense, a robbery at Swenson's Truck Stop, occurred several days before the Palace Casino robbery. The state moved to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it was hearsay, that there was an inadequate showing that Northbird committed the robbery, and that there was an inadequate showing of any connection between the Palace Casino and Swenson's Truck Stop robberies.
The district court, by written order, denied the motion in limine. The court later denied the state's motion for reconsideration, but clarified its ruling. The state appealed from the order denying reconsideration. This court issued an order directing the parties to file informal memoranda addressing whether the state can show that the district court's order has critical impact.
I. Does this court have authority to require a preliminary showing of critical impact?
II. Does the critical impact test apply to an order denying a motion to exclude evidence?
III. Has the state made a preliminary showing of critical impact?
In order to prevail in an appeal from a pretrial order, the state must show clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
The supreme court discussed the Webber test and its application in State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Minn.1987). In addressing the "critical impact" test, the court noted:
The fact is that before the establishment of the court of appeals, we frequently reviewed state's appeals from pretrial suppression orders and in reviewing such cases we made a preliminary determination that the state had met the critical impact test. Had we not made such a preliminary determination, we would not have decided those appeals but would have dismissed them.
Id. (emphasis added; footnote omitted). In a footnote, the court referred to the use of critical impact as "a threshold requirement to review." Id. at 550, n. 10.
In an appeal where the critical impact standard could not be met, the Webber court reversed on the merits. Webber, 262 N.W.2d at 159. This indicates that reversal, rather than dismissal, is the appropriate disposition. But, in this regard, Joon Kyu Kim modifies Webber, indicating that dismissal is also a proper disposition when the state has not shown critical impact. See Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d at 550 ().
As the state points out, this court has addressed critical impact in a number of published opinions reaching the merits of pretrial appeals. See, e.g., State v. Hookom, 474 N.W.2d 624, 630 (Minn.App.1991); State v. Grimmett, 459 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Minn.App.1990). These opinions, however, should not be read as waiving this court's right to apply Joon Kyu Kim and make a preliminary determination of critical impact in selected cases.
This court's practice is to review carefully the statements of the case submitted in prosecution pretrial appeals. In most cases, critical impact will be apparent from the nature of the order being appealed. But in a few cases, where the notice of appeal or the statement of the case does not indicate critical impact, it is appropriate under Joon Kyu Kim to require the state to make a preliminary showing of critical impact. In those cases, this court will issue an order questioning jurisdiction, giving the prosecutor and the defense an opportunity to make a preliminary showing on the issue of whether critical impact exists. It would be helpful if the prosecutor in such cases provided copies of the complaint, relevant police reports and witness statements, as necessary, rather than relying on argumentative statements regarding the anticipated evidence.
The state also argues that the critical impact test does not apply to this appeal because it does not involve the suppression of evidence. To support its position, the state cites a number of cases involving pretrial discovery orders. In these cases, which do not involve the suppression of evidence, this court has declined to apply the critical impact standard. See State v. Cain, 427 N.W.2d 5, 9-10 (Minn.App.1988) (); City of Bemidji v. Harr, 368 N.W.2d 359, 360 (Minn.App.1985) (); see also State v. Solheim, 477 N.W.2d 785, 786-87 (Minn.App.1991) (). The supreme court, however, has applied the critical impact standard to an order denying a prosecution motion to exclude defense evidence. State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn.1990), rev'g 446 N.W.2d 666 (Minn.App.1989). We follow Barsness and apply this test.
The state contends that critical impact is shown in this case, primarily by the acquittal of Jones' co-defendant, Merrill Hill, after the court admitted the Swenson's Truck Stop robbery evidence in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wicklund
... ... Does the free speech provision of the Minnesota Constitution apply to respondents' expressive conduct at the Mall of America? ... This court generally reviews a pretrial order appealed by the state under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 518 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Minn.App.1994) (in pretrial appeal, state must show clearly and unequivocally that district court erred and, unless reversed, error will have critical impact on outcome of trial), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994). The issue presented here, however, is the proper ... ...
-
State v. Jordan, A06-1445.
... ... "In order to prevail in an appeal from a pretrial order, the state must show clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial." State v. Jones, 518 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Minn.App. 1994) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994). Respondent concedes critical impact in this case ... "[T]he exclusionary rule is a judicially created tool designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment ... ...
-
State v. Moreland
... ... See State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Minn. 1987) (indicating that supreme court dismisses state appeals absent critical impact); State v. Jones, 518 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Minn. App. 1994) (dismissing appeal when "[t]he state ha[d] not shown the district court's order ha[d] critical impact"), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994).1Appeal dismissed.--------Notes:1. Prior to oral arguments in this case, Moreland filed a motion for attorney fees and ... ...
-
State v. Haukos
... ... Page 6 Jennings, 487 N.W.2d 536, 538 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 1992). The state may not "premise critical impact on a series of evidentiary rulings that may or may not follow that ruling." State v. Jones, 518 N.W.2d 67, 70 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994). While the district court deferred its decision about the specific aspects of Dr. Hackett's testimony that it would allow, it determined that it would permit Dr. Hackett to testify about S.D.'s sexual and mental health ... ...