Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Sahr

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 25, 2012No. A10-0074Published

1DissentDietzen, Justice

This case squarely presents an important statewide issue of first impression: whether the double jeopardy protections, provided by statute and the state and federal constitutions, bar future prosecution when a defendant deliberately fails to raise a known defect in the complaint before the jury is sworn. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure have long required that a defendant must bring a motion to dismiss the complaint before the omnibus hearing. Appellant Sahr knew the complaint had a curable defect and deliberately failed to raise the defect in order to improperly manufacture a double…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  5. Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API