State v. Maki, 43205

Decision Date19 November 1971
Docket NumberNo. 43205,43205
CitationState v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 1971)
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Thomas W. MAKI, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

Minn.St. 632.11, subd. 1, which gives the state the right to appeal from an order dismissing a complaint, is intended to give the state the right to appeal under circumstances where the order appealed from effectively defeats or prevents successful prosecutive action. The statute is not intended to give the state the right to appeal from every order of a magistrate which dismisses a complaint after preliminary examination.

Warren R. Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Keith M. Brownell, Co. Atty., Thomas J. Bieter, Asst. Co. Atty., Duluth, for appellant.

McNulty & Stege, Duluth, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and MURPHY, OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and HACHEY, JJ. Reconsidered and decided on the record by the court en banc.

OPINION

MURPHY, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the municipal court of the city of Duluth dismissing a complaint after a preliminary hearing. The complaint charged defendant with alleged violation of statutes relating to possession of prohibited drugs, Minn.St.1969, §§ 618.02 and 152.09. The state contends here that the municipal court misconceived its role as a magistrate in preliminary examination and functioned as a trier of fact in determining guilt or innocence rather than passing upon the issue of whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant was guilty of a public offense. State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 122 N.W.2d 769 (1963); State ex rel. Hastings v. Bailey, 263 Minn. 261, 116 N.W.2d 548 (1962).

We hold that, on the record, the order of the magistrate is not appealable. The state apparently finds support for the appeal from the provisions of Minn.St. 632.11, subd. 1, which provide in part:

'In criminal cases the state may appeal in the following instances:

'(1) From an order, the substantive effect of which is to dismiss an indictment, information or complaint.'

We do not understand this provision to comprehend that the state has the right to appeal every time a magistrate dismisses a complaint. As we comprehend the uses of this provision, it is intended to give the state the right to appeal under circumstances where the order appealed from effectively defeats or prevents successful prosecutive action against the defendant. In this case, the magistrate's dismissal of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
19 cases
  • State v. Aarsvold
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • November 12, 1985
    ...29.03, subd. 1, 2 which superceded Minn. Stat. § 632.11 in 1975 and is the predecessor of the current rule. In State v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N.W.2d 811 (1971), the supreme court, construing Minn. Stat. § 632.11, stated that the prosecution has a right to appeal "where the order appealed......
  • People v. George
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan
    • May 4, 1982
    ...U.S. 390, 393, 45 S.Ct. 516, 69 L.Ed. 1010 (1925), Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 331 A.2d 205 (1975), Minnesota v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N.W.2d 811 (1971), State v. Thomas, 529 S.W.2d 379, 382-383 (Mo.1975), Richmond v. Wyoming, 554 P.2d 1217 (Wyo.1976). See also 21 Am.Jur.2d......
  • State v. Jaeger
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1994
    ...N.W.2d 612, 613 (1977) (per curiam) (state may appeal magistrate's dismissal or unconditionally refile complaint); State v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N.W.2d 811, 811-12 (1971) (state may not appeal magistrate's dismissal but may unconditionally refile complaint or seek grand jury indictment)......
  • State v. Diaz
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1990
    ...thinks it has been mistreated. Found in the case law precedent cited by Justice Shepard in authoring the Ruiz opinion is State v. Maki, 192 N.W.2d 811 (Minn.1971). Justice Shepard was impressed enough with the Minnesota court's views that he quoted almost the entire ratio decidendi by which......
  • Get Started for Free