State v. Strouth

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Strouth

199 N.W.2d 802, 294 Minn. 490, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1439

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 21, 1972

DocketNo. 43751

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 N.W.2d 802 (State v. Strouth) 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. Strouth, 199 N.W.2d 802, 294 Minn. 490, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1439 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is, an appeal by the state from an order of the district court, pursuant .to a motion made upon a special appearance by defendant-respondent, dismissing a complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the state failed to offer sufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of the crime charged to warrant binding him over to the. district court. The complaint charged defendant with alleged violation of the statutes relating to possession of prohibited drugs. Minn. St. 152.09, subd. 1(2); 152.02, subd. 2(3); 152.15, subd. 2(2). The state contends the order is appealable under Minn. St. 632.11, subd. 1.

This court held in State v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N. W. 2d 811 (1971), that ah order of the municipal court dismissing the complaint after a preliminary hearing was not an appealable order. As in State v. Maki, supra, we find the dismissal does not defeat or prevent prosecution against the defendant.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is, an appeal by the state from an order of the district court, pursuant .to a motion made upon a special appearance by defendant-respondent, dismissing a complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the state failed to offer sufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of the crime charged to warrant binding him over to the. district court. The complaint charged defendant with alleged violation of the statutes relating to possession of prohibited drugs. Minn. St. 152.09, subd. 1(2); 152.02, subd. 2(3); 152.15, subd. 2(2). The state contends the order is appealable under Minn. St. 632.11, subd. 1.

This court held in State v. Maki, 291 Minn. 427, 192 N. W. 2d 811 (1971), that ah order of the municipal court dismissing the complaint after a preliminary hearing was not an appealable order. As in State v. Maki, supra, we find the dismissal does not defeat or prevent prosecution against the defendant.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W.2d 802, 294 Minn. 490, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strouth-minn-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack