Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

325 N.W.2d 641

State v. Keith

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 29, 1982

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1982-10-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We have ruled in a number of cases that generally we will dismiss the state's appeal if this rule is not complied with unless there are special circumstances which would justify our exercising appellate jurisdiction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Schubring

“[I]n matters of procedure rather than of substance the Rules of Criminal Procedure take precedence over statutes to the extent that there is any inconsistency.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Carver

Relies on State v. Schroeder · State v. Olson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-10-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2012

10 state decisions

401982199020002010decided

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 →

SCOTT, Justice.

¶1 This is an appeal by the Scott County Attorney pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03 from a pretrial order of the district court in a gross misdemeanor prosecution of defendant for violating Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subds. 1(a) and 3(a), as amended by Act of March 19, 1982, ch. 423, 1982 Minn.Laws 288. The order removes the county attorney from the case and remands the matter to the city attorney for the City of Shako-pee for prosecution. The issue raised by the appeal is whether only the city attorney generally shall prosecute the gross-misdemeanor violations of section 169.121. This issue would require interpretation of the following language of the statute: “The attorney in the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred who is responsible for prosecution of misdemeanor violations of section 169.121 shall also be responsible for prosecution of gross-misdemeanor violations of section 169.121.” Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 3(b), as amended.

¶2 The appellant has failed to comply with Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 2(5), which provides that the prosecutor must serve and file its brief within 15 days of the notice of appeal or the delivery of the transcript, whichever is later. We have ruled in a *642 number of cases that generally we will dismiss the state’s appeal if this rule is not complied with unless there are special circumstances which would justify our exercising appellate jurisdiction. State v. Olson, 294 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.1980); State v. Schroeder, 292 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.1980). Here there are no special circumstances which would justify our exercising appellate jurisdiction.

¶3 We note, however, that in matters of procedure rather than of substance the Rules of Criminal Procedure take precedence over statutes to the extent that there is any inconsistency.

¶4 Defendant is awarded $400 as attorney fees pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 2(8).

¶5 Appeal dismissed.

/325/nw2d/641 · .json · Public domain