Title: State v. Clark

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

151 N.W.2d 253 (1967) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Harold CLARK, Appellant. No. 40311. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 26, 1967. *254 Fallon, Lewis, & Wasserman, Minneapolis, for appellant. Keith M. Stidd, City Atty., Jerome R. Jallo, Minneapolis, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted of careless driving in violation of a Minneapolis ordinance. He waived a jury trial and was found guilty by the court without a jury. There is no claim that the evidence does not sustain the conviction. The charge was based upon a complaint signed by one Jogindar Singh Uppal. The state did not produce the complaining witness at the trial. Defendant now claims that he is entitled to a dismissal because Minn.St. 629.50 requires the complaining witness to be produced and examined in the presence of the defendant. This statute reads: This statute is to be found in the chapter dealing with extradition, arrest, and bail. It has nothing to do with the trial of a misdemeanor. At best, it is a pretrial proceeding involved in cases where informations are filed and a preliminary hearing is required. The trial court was correct in holding that the conviction here is valid without the prosecution's producing the complaining witness. Affirmed.