Legal Opinion

State v. Mertz

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 18, 2011No. A10-2003Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WORKE, Judge.

In this pretrial appeal, the state argues that the district court erred in finding that respondent recanted his perjured statement and in dismissing the perjury charge for lack of probable cause. Respondent filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the perjury statute does not require the administration of a formal oath. We agree with respondent and affirm because, although the district court erred in determining that a proper oath was given, the court appropriately dismissed the charge.

FACTS

On April 14, 2010, respondent Michael Ray…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kahn v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. State v. LinvilleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  3. State v. CiurleoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  4. State v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  5. State v. HealyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

1 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