Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.06
As amended through February 1, 2024
Subd. 1. Defects in Form. No charging document will be dismissed nor will the trial, judgment, or other proceedings be affected by reason of a defect or imperfection in matters of form that does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
Subd. 2. Motion to Dismiss or for Appropriate Relief. All objections to the charging document must be made by motion under Rule 10.01, subd. 2 and may be based on the following grounds without limit:
Subd. 3. Time for Motion. A motion to dismiss the charging document must be made within the time prescribed by Rule 10.03, subd. 1. At any time during the pendency of a proceeding an objection may be made to the court's jurisdiction over the offense or that the charging document fails to charge an offense.
Subd. 4. Effect of Determining Motion to Dismiss.
In misdemeanor cases, if the defendant is unable to post any bail that may be required under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, the defendant must be released subject to such non-monetary conditions as the court deems appropriate. The specified time for such amended or new indictment or complaint must not exceed 60 days for filing a new indictment or 7 days for amending an indictment or complaint or for filing a new complaint. During the 7-day period for making the motion and during the time specified by the order, if such motion is made, the indictment or complaint's dismissal must be stayed. If the prosecutor does not make the motion within the 7-day period or if the indictment or complaint is not amended or if a new indictment or complaint is not filed within the time specified, the defendant must be discharged and further prosecution for the same offense is barred unless the prosecutor has appealed as provided by law, or the defendant is charged with murder and the court has granted a motion to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. In misdemeanor and designated gross misdemeanor cases (as defined in Rule 1.04(a)-(b)) dismissed for failure to file a timely complaint within the time limits as provided by Rule 4.02 subd. 5(3), further prosecution will not be barred unless the court has so ordered.
Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.06
The complaint under Rule 2.01 and the indictment under Rule 17.02, subd. 2 must contain a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. The statement of the evidence, supporting affidavits, or sworn testimony, showing probable cause required by Rule 2.01 are not a part of the indictment.
The required legal content of the complaint and indictment is set forth in Rules. 2.01 and 17.02, and serves the function of informing the court of the offense(s) charged and the facts establishing probable cause. In addition to this legal information, the court requires administrative information to identify the defendant and the case, as well as additional factual information about the defendant or the status of the defendant's case to fulfill the court's statutory obligations to provide such information to other agencies. There is no requirement that the complaint or indictment be submitted to the court in any particular form or format. Rule 17.02, subd. 4 requires the State Court Administrator to identify and publish the administrative content of the complaint or indictment required by the courts. A sample complaint/indictment and a listing of the administrative content approved by the State Court Administrator will be published on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website. This flexibility will allow for e-filing of the complaint or indictment.
Except to the extent that existing statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 628.10, 628.12- 628.13, 628.15- 628.18, 628.20- 628.24, 628.27) that govern the contents of an indictment or information are inconsistent with Rule 17.02, they are not abrogated by these rules. So, to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of Rule 17.02, they may be followed in drawing complaints and indictments under these rules.
Rule 17.02, subd. 3 permits counts to be used but prohibits duplication by charging more than one offense in a single count.
Rule 17.03, subd. 5 sets forth procedures for representing two or more defendants who are jointly charged or tried, as set forth in State v. Olsen, 258 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. 1977). That case requires defendants to clearly and unequivocally waive their constitutional right to separate counsel. If a record is not made as required or if the record fails to show that the procedures were followed in every important respect, State v. Olsen, supra, places the burden on the prosecutor to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a prejudicial conflict of interest did not exist.
Rule 17.05 leaves district courts to determine whether the defendant will be substantially prejudiced by an amendment and what steps, if any, including a continuance, may be taken to remove any prejudice that might otherwise result from an amendment. Rule 17.05 does not govern a complaint's amendment after a mistrial and before the start of the second trial. Rather, Rule 3.04, subd. 2, which provides for the free amendment of the complaint, controls. State v. Alexander, 290 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1980).
Grounds for a motion for dismissal of an indictment only and for a motion for dismissal of an indictment or complaint are set forth in Rule 17.06, subd. 2(1) and (2). These grounds are not intended to be exclusive.
Rule 17.06, subd. 2(1)(a) is available because Rule 18.04, subd. 1 requires a record to be made of the evidence taken before the grand jury. (See also the provisions of 18.04, subd. 1 for the conditions in which the record may be disclosed to the defendant. And see also Rule 18.05, subd. 2.) Upon such a motion, the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence pertaining to indictments is governed by Rules 18.05, subd. 1, and 18.05, subd. 2.
Rule 17.06, subd. 2(2)(f) leaves to judicial decision the constitutional or other requirements of a speedy trial as well as the effect of denying a defendant's demand for trial under Rule 11.08 -.09 and Rule 6.06.
By Rule 10.03, subd. 1, a motion to dismiss an indictment or complaint must be served no later than 3 days before the Omnibus Hearing under Rule 11 unless the time is extended for good cause. In misdemeanor cases, by Rule 17.06, subd. 3, a motion to dismiss must be served at least 3 days before the pretrial conference or, at least 3 days before the trial if no pretrial conference is held, unless this time is extended for good cause.
The first sentence of Rule 17.06, subd. 4 contemplates that a defendant may plead not guilty and also make a motion to dismiss if the defendant wishes.
To make the basis for dismissal based on a defect in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or complaint apparent, Rule 17.06, subd. 4 requires the court to specify the grounds for granting the motion. Under Rule 17.06, subd. 4(3), if the dismissal is for failure to file a timely complaint as required by Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3) for misdemeanor cases, or for designated gross misdemeanor cases as defined in Rule 1.04(b), or for a defect which could be cured by a new complaint, the prosecutor may within 7 days after notice of entry of the order dismissing the case move to continue the case for the purpose of filing a new complaint. On such a motion, the court must continue the case for no more than 7 days pending the filing of a new complaint, or amending of the complaint or indictment, or for 60 days pending the filing of a new indictment. This filing requirement for a new or amended complaint is not satisfied until the complaint is signed by the judge or other appropriate issuing officer and then filed with the court administrator.
During the time for such a motion and during any continuance, dismissal of the charge is stayed. In a misdemeanor case, the defendant must not be kept in custody. Rule 17.06, subd. 4(3), does not govern dismissals for defects that could not be cured at the time of dismissal by a new or amended complaint or indictment. Therefore, when a complaint or indictment has been dismissed because of insufficient evidence to establish probable cause, the prosecutor may re-prosecute if further evidence is later discovered to establish probable cause. Also under Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3), even if prosecution is reinstituted within the specified period after having been dismissed for failure to file a timely complaint, a summons rather than a warrant must be issued to secure the defendant's appearance in court.