State v. Maki, 43205
| Decision Date | 19 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43205,43205 |
| Citation | 192 N.W.2d 811,291 Minn. 427 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Thomas W. MAKI, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota 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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aarsvold
...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
...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
...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
...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......