Court Opinion

ID: 9658919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:22:01.390856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:01.579108
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting)
I cannot agree with the majority that appellant was entitled to a formal complaint for this petty misdemeanor speeding charge. But assuming for the sake of argument that he is, not every violation of a procedural rule requires reversal of a conviction. See generally Minn. R.Crim. P. 31.01 (providing that errors not affecting substantial rights should be disregarded). Even violations of rules that protect a defendant’s constitutional rights do not automatically give rise to so severe a sanction. See State v. Jackson, 472 N.W.2d 861, 863 (Minn.1991) (holding violation of prompt arraignment rule does not necessarily require suppression of statement); State v. Genung, 481 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Minn.App.1992) (holding violation of deadline for submission of homicide case to grand jury did not require dismissal), review denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1992). Appellant received a copy of everything in the police file, which was all the discovery he was entitled to. Minn. R.Crim. P. 7.03. This discovery fulfilled the purpose that would have been served by a formal complaint. See State v. Jannetta, 355 N.W.2d 189, 194 (Minn.App.1984); 1 Martin J. Costello et al., Minnesota Misdemeanors and Moving Traffic Violations 95 (3rd ed.1999). Appellant cannot show prejudice from the denial of a formal complaint, and therefore is not entitled to reversal of his conviction.