State v. Maki

State v. Thomas W. Maki

State v. Maki, 192 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 1971)

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 19, 1971
Docket: No. 43205
Judges: Knutson, Murphy, Otis, Rogosheske, Hachey, Reconsidered
Citations: 192 N.W.2d 811291 Minn. 4271971 Minn. LEXIS 1051

Cited by 18 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Murphy

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(state may not appeal magistrate's dismissal but may unconditionally refile complaint or seek grand jury indictment)

State v. Jaeger, 886 P.2d 53 (Utah 1994)

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Loomis201 P.3d 1277 (Idaho 2009)
State v. Aarsvold376 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Ruiz678 P.2d 1109 (Idaho 1984)
City of St. Paul v. Hurd216 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1974)
State v. Diaz788 P.2d 207 (Idaho 1990) · Dissent
City of St. Paul v. Landreville221 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 1974)

Most recent

State v. Skeets(N.M. Feb. 12, 2026)
State v. John Huey Daniels343 P.3d 59 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Loomis201 P.3d 1277 (Idaho 2009)
State v. Jaeger886 P.2d 53 (Utah 1994)
State v. Diaz788 P.2d 207 (Idaho 1990) · Dissent
State v. Berger412 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State ex rel. Hastings v. Bailey, 116 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1962)	20
	State v. Schwartz, 122 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 1963)	20

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list