Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

269 N.W.2d 736

State v. Fleck

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 14, 1978

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1978-07-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The court may order dismissal of an action either on its own motion or upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice. If the court dismisses an action, the reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in the order and entered upon the minutes.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Ramirez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-07-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2006

6 state decisions

401978198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an appeal brought by the prosecution pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, from an order of the district court dismissing on its own motion incest charges contained in amended complaints charging defendant with incest and first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Minn.St. 609.342(a) and 609.365. We dismiss the appeal as being from a nonappeal *737 able order under Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶2 Minn.St. 631.21 reads as follows:

“The court may, either of its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting officer, and in furtherance of justice, order any criminal action, whether prosecuted upon indictment, information, or complaint, to be dismissed; but in that case the reasons for the dismissal shall be set forth in the order, and entered upon the minutes, and the recommendations of the prosecuting officer in reference thereto, with his reasons therefor, shall be stated in writing and filed as a public record with the official files of the case.”

¶3 The district .court on its own motion and “in furtherance of justice” dismissed the incest charges because it felt that the additional expense to the county of prosecuting the incest charges was not justified, since the charges each carried only a 10-year sentence, whereas the first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges each carried a maximum 20-year sentence.

¶4 We believe that the interests of justice were not furthered by the dismissal. However, Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which this appeal was taken, does not give the prosecutor the right to appeal from the dismissal. The state’s remedy is not an appeal but to either reissue the amended complaint or try to get the court to reconsider its decision.

¶5 Appeal dismissed.

/269/nw2d/736 · .json · Public domain