State v. Maki

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Maki

192 N.W.2d 811, 291 Minn. 427, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1051

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 19, 1971

Docket43205

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 192 N.W.2d 811 (State v. Maki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Maki, 192 N.W.2d 811, 291 Minn. 427, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1051 (Mich. 1971).

Pincite

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 *428 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 complaint does not necessarily defeat or terminate the prosecution. The prosecutive authorities may, by further appropriate proceedings, pursue the matter, either by presenting it to another magistrate or by presenting facts relating to the alleged offense to a grand jury for indictment. An appellate court should not be required to review the issue of probable cause in every preliminary examination before the magistrates of this state.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *428 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 complaint does not necessarily defeat or terminate the prosecution. The prosecutive authorities may, by further appropriate proceedings, pursue the matter, either by presenting it to another magistrate or by presenting facts relating to the alleged offense to a grand jury for indictment. An appellate court should not be required to review the issue of probable cause in every preliminary examination before the magistrates of this state.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 811, 291 Minn. 427, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maki-minn-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack