Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

292 Minn. 439

State v. Etrheim

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 7, 1972

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1972-01-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1977

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Minn.St. 633.20 provides: “Any person convicted of a criminal offense by a justice, whether on a plea of guilty or on a plea of not guilty, and whether or not the fine has been paid, may appeal to the district court within ten days after the conviction by: “Entering into a recognizance, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the justice, conditioned to appear before the district court on the first day of the general term thereof next to be held in and for that county and to abide the judgment of the court therein, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior; “and by serving a notice upon the county attorney or, if there is no county attorney or he is absent from the county, upon the clerk of the district court specifying the grounds of the appeal as follows: That the appeal is taken upon questions of law alone or upon questions of law and fact.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including City of St. Paul v. Flowers

Relies on State v. Freitag · State v. Johnson · City of St. Paul v. Sutherland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Defendant’s appeal to the district court from a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol, entered in the criminal division of the Yellow Medicine County probate court, was dismissed because of a defective appeal bond. The only issue is whether the district court was deprived of jurisdiction. We hold that it was and affirm.

¶2Minn. St. 633.20 requires that the bond be conditioned on defendant’s appearing before the district court on the first day of the next general term. The bond which defendant filed failed to contain that provision. Defendant argues, however, that the condition was waived because the court some 4 months later advised counsel it would not be necessary for defendant to be personally present at the opening of the term.

¶3We have held in a number of cases that the filing of a bond in strict compliance with the statute is jurisdictional.1 Only where we have construed conflicting statutes2 or were dealing with the constitutional rights of indigents 3 have we relaxed that rule. In the case at hand the *440defect in the bond was not corrected by the court’s excusing defendant’s appearance after the time for filing the bond had expired. Accordingly, the appeal was properly dismissed.

¶4Affirmed.

¶5 State v. Mattson, 105 Minn. 63, 117 N. W. 227 (1908); State v. Johnson, 242 Minn. 148, 64 N. W. 2d 145 (1954); State v. Dahm, 274 Minn. 318, 144 N. W. 2d 537 (1966).

¶6 City of St. Paul v. Sutherland, 270 Minn. 61, 132 N. W. 2d 280 (1964).

¶7 State v. Freitag, 281 Minn. 573, 161 N. W. 2d 530 (1968).

/292/minn/439 · .json · Public domain