Title: State v. Viergutz
Citation: 288 N.W.2d 693
Docket Number: 50713
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: January 4, 1980

288 N.W.2d 693 (1980) STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Herbert Andrew VIERGUTZ, Respondent. No. 50713. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 4, 1980. *694 Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard D. Hodsdon, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas G. McCarthy, County Atty., Winthrop, for appellant. Nilva &amp; Frisch and Thomas J. Laughlin, St. Paul, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. SHERAN, Chief Justice. This is a pretrial appeal by the state, pursuant to R. 29.03, subd. 1, R.Crim.P., from an order of the district court dismissing an amended complaint in a felony prosecution. The issue on appeal focuses on the meaning of R. 17.06, subd. 4(3), R.Crim.P., *695 re the appropriate procedures a prosecutor must follow in order to file an amended complaint when the original complaint is dismissed for lack of probable cause. The district court held that when a complaint is dismissed for lack of probable cause and the state, not needing to rely on any newly discovered evidence, wants to remedy the matter by filing an amended complaint which contains a showing of probable cause, the state must move within 7 days of the dismissal for permission to file the amended complaint and that, in the absence of such a timely motion, the prosecution must be barred even if the amended complaint was actually filed within the 7-day period after the dismissal of the original complaint. We hold that if the amended complaint in this case was filed within the 7-day period following the dismissal of the original complaint a factual issue apparently not yet decided by the district court then the district court erred in dismissing the amended complaint and barring further prosecution of the offense in question. Rule 17.06, subd. 4, R.Crim.P., reads in relevant part as follows: The relevant comments to the rule read as follows: The district court felt that the rule was ambiguous as to whether a prosecutor could simply file a corrected amended complaint within the 7-day period after the filing of the order dismissing the complaint, and ruled that the ambiguity had to be resolved against the state. The court did not reach the issue discussed in the briefs of the meaning of the statement in the second quoted paragraph of the comments that "when a complaint or indictment has been dismissed because of insufficient evidence to establish probable cause, the prosecutor may re-prosecute if further evidence is later discovered to establish probable cause." The state argues that that language, which was added to the comments in 1977, applies here. Defendant contends that it does not apply here but only to the situation in which the reason for the delay in filing the amended complaint is that the prosecutor did not have sufficient evidence before to establish probable cause. In our opinion the defendant is correct in saying that the language in question in the commentary does not apply to situations such as we have here, where the original complaint was dismissed, not because evidence to establish probable cause was not available to the prosecutor, but because the prosecutor failed to refer to the evidence in the complaint. Here the evidence which the state cited in the amended complaint was available to the prosecutor at the time he filed the original complaint and it was only through inadvertence that the prosecutor did not mention it in the complaint. *697 However, we disagree with the district court's conclusion that the filing of the amended complaint must be preceded by a filing of a motion for permission to file the complaint. The idea behind the rule is that a defendant who is in custody will normally be kept in custody at least for 7 days following a dismissal of a prosecution against him on the basis of a defect in the complaint which is curable. During this period the prosecutor is to decide whether he wishes to try to correct the defect and file an amended complaint. If the prosecutor cannot decide this or cannot file an amended complaint within the 7-day period but needs more time then the prosecutor must move for a continuance within the 7-day period and the court "shall" order a "reasonable" continuance. The state may file an amended complaint correcting the defect which resulted in the dismissal any time within the 7-day period following the dismissal or any time within the period of the continuance if the prosecutor has obtained a continuance within the 7-day time period. If the prosecutor does not file within the 7-day period or the period of the continuance, if one was granted, then the prosecution is barred unless one of the exceptions mentioned in the comments applies that is, unless the prosecutor has appealed, unless the murder exception applies or unless the dismissal was for insufficient probable cause then available and sufficient evidence to establish probable cause is later discovered. In conclusion, we reverse the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. On remand the parties may, of course, raise any undecided factual issues, e. g., the issue of whether the complaint was filed within the 7-day period following the dismissal of the original complaint, an issue which apparently was left undecided by the district court. Defendant is allowed attorneys fees in the amount of $150. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.