Legal Opinion
State v. Bistodeau
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 25, 1998No. C0-98-504Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant argues that the district court erred when it concluded that it had jurisdiction over money seized from respondent at the time of his arrest (money subject to a possible future forfeiture under Minn.Stat. § 609.762 (1996)). Appellant also argues that the district court further erred when it ruled that respondent could pay his criminal fine with a portion of the seized money. We affirm.
FACTS
On April 2, 1997, respondent Bistodeau was charged in two different complaints filed in Hennepin County District Court with operating an illegal gambling operation and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- St. Louis County Attorney's Office v. Twenty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Three & 01/100 Dollars ($24,643.01) in Various Denominations of U.S. CurrencyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. SutterfieldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- State, Department of Public Safety v. $6,276 in United States CurrencyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- State v. MozeleyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990