Case Title: State, Village of Eden Prairie v. Housman

Citation: 180 N.W.2d 251

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1970-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
180 N.W.2d 251 (1970) STATE of Minnesota, VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, Appellant, v. Larry Richard HOUSMAN, Respondent. No. 42467. Supreme Court of Minnesota. October 9, 1970. Perbix, Harvey & Simons, Hopkins, for appellant. Comer & McGraw and W. B. Haas, Hutchinson, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and NELSON, WILLIAM P. MURPHY, OTIS and JAMES F. MURPHY, JJ. PER CURIAM. The state appeals under Minn.St. 632.11 from an order denying a continuance and dismissing, for lack of prosecution, a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 169.121. We affirm. Defendant was arrested on November 7, 1969, in the village of Eden Prairie. At a pretrial conference in the municipal court of Hennepin County at Wayzata on the afternoon of February 24, 1970, the court set the matter for trial at 9:30 the following morning. The arresting officer came on duty at 10 p. m. that night and at 10:30 p. m. advised the prosecution that he would be out of town on business at the time set for hearing. This information was communicated to the presiding judge at 7:30 a. m. the next day with a request for a continuance, which was denied. At the time of hearing in open court, the prosecutor moved that the matter be continued, or in the alternative that it be dismissed without prejudice. The motion was resisted by defendant. The court in ruling on the motion stated as follows: Since we construe the court's order dismissing "for lack of prosecution" as a dismissal without prejudice, its refusal to grant a continuance is for practical purposes rendered moot. We have no rule or statute precisely in point.[1] However, a number of Federal courts have passed on similar orders in applying Rule 48(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus: Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, Note to Rule 48(b), states: The leading case is Mann v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 304 F.2d 394, certiorari denied, 371 U.S. 896, 83 S. Ct. 194, 9 L. Ed. 2d 127. The trial court there, in dismissing "for want of prosecution," clearly expressed its intent to dismiss without prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals held that such a dismissal is not equivalent to a finding that defendant has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. If that were the case, the court said, the trial court should have expressly noted that the dismissal was with prejudice. Other courts have squarely held that where there is a dismissal for lack of prosecution under the rule it is a dismissal without prejudice. United States v. Cephas, (D.C.App.) 204 A.2d 572; United States v. Garces Dorrego (D. Puerto Rico) 17 F.R.D. 340; United States v. Kennedy, (D.C.App.) 220 A.2d 322; United States v. Mark II Electronics of Louisiana (E.D. La.) 283 F. Supp. 280; United States v. Chase (4 Cir.) 372 F.2d 453, 463; Cohen v. United States (9 Cir.) 366 F.2d 363, 367. In the light of these authorities and because the court here did not direct but merely recommended that the prosecution not be pursued, the effect of the order was to grant the state's alternative motion. Consequently, it is affirmed. Pursuant to Minn.St. 632.13(8) defendant is allowed $150 attorney's fees. Neither party shall be allowed costs or disbursements. Affirmed. KELLY, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] Minn.St. 611.04 applies only to felonies which have not been brought to trial promptly.