Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Loeffler

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 20, 2001No. C5-00-1181Published

1DissentSchumacher, Judge

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…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. JannettaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. State v. GenungCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  3. State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API