Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.06

As amended through June 5, 2024

Rule 1.06 - Use of Electronic Filing for Charging Documents

Subd. 1.Definition of E-Filing. "E-filing" for purposes of this rule means the electronic transmission of the charging document to the court administrator by means authorized by the State Court Administrator.

Subd. 2.Authorization. E-filing must be used to file all citations, tab charges, and complaints.

Subd. 3.Signatures.

(1) How Made. All signatures required under these rules must be affixed electronically, unless the e-filing technology is unavailable. If the document must be printed and manually signed, a printed copy must be filed with the court.

(2) Signature Standard. Electronic signatures may be affixed by any electronic means.

(3) Effect of Electronic Signature. A printed copy of a charging document showing that an electronic signature was properly affixed under paragraph (2) prior to the printout is prima facie evidence of the authenticity of the electronic signature.

Subd. 4.Electronic Notarization. If the probable cause statement in an e-filed complaint is made under oath before a notary public, it must be electronically notarized in accordance with state law. The probable cause statement may be signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 358.116.

Subd. 5.Paper Submission. E-filed charging documents are in lieu of paper submissions. An e-filed charging document should not be transmitted to the court administrator by any other means. Paper submission is authorized in lieu of e-filing where the electronic means authorized by the State Court Administrator are unavailable to the submitting agency. The refusal to purchase the needed equipment or utilize the electronic means authorized by the State Court Administration does not constitute unavailability.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.06

Amended July 17, 2017, effective 10/1/2017.

Comment-Rule 1

Beyond the procedures required by these rules, prosecutors, courts, and law enforcement agencies should also be aware of the rights of crime victims as provided in chapter 611A of the Minnesota Statutes.

Rule 1.04 (d) defines "aggravated sentence" for the purpose of the provisions in these rules governing the procedure that a sentencing court must follow to impose an upward sentencing departure in compliance with Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301-305 (2004). On June 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided in Blakely that an upward departure in sentencing under the State of Washington's determinate sentencing system violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights where the additional findings required to justify the departure were not made beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The definition is in accord with existing Minnesota case law holding that Blakely applies to upward departures under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and under various sentencing enhancement statutes requiring additional factual findings. See, e.g., State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 140-142 (Minn. 2005) (durational departures); State v. Allen, 706 N.W.2d 40, 44-47 (Minn. 2005) (dispositional departures); State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 321-324 (Minn. 2005) (life sentence without release under Minnesota Statutes, section 609.106); State v. Barker, 705 N.W.2d 768, 771-773 (Minn. 2005) (firearm sentence enhancements under Minnesota Statutes, section 609.11); and State v. Henderson, 706 N.W.2d 758, 761-762 (Minn. 2005) (career offender sentence enhancements under Minnesota Statutes section 609.1095, subd. 4).

These Blakely-related protections and procedures do not apply retroactively to sentences that were imposed and were no longer subject to direct appeal by the time that Blakely was decided on June 24, 2004. State v. Houston, 702 N.W.2d 268, 773 (Minn. 2005). Also, the protections and procedures do not apply to sentencing departures and enhancements that are based solely on a defendant's criminal conviction history such as the assessment of a custody status point under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. State v. Allen, 706 N.W.2d 40, 47-48 (Minn. 2005).

For aggravated sentence procedures related to Blakely, see Rule 7.03 (notice of prosecutor's intent to seek an aggravated sentence in proceedings prosecuted by complaint); Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7) (discovery of evidence relating to an aggravated sentence); Rule 11.04, subd. 2 (Omnibus Hearing decisions on aggravated sentence issues); Rule 15.01, subd. 2 and Appendices E and F (required questioning and written petition provisions concerning defendant's admission of facts supporting an aggravated sentence and accompanying waiver of rights); Rule 19.04, subd. 6 (notice of prosecutor's intent to seek an aggravated sentence in proceedings prosecuted by indictment); Rule 26.01, subd. 1(2)(b) (waiver of right to a jury trial determination of facts supporting an aggravated sentence); Rule 26.01, subd. 3 (stipulation of facts, evidence, or both to support an aggravated sentence and accompanying waiver of rights); Rules 26.03, subd. 18(1) and (3) (motion that evidence submitted to jury was insufficient to support an aggravated sentence); Rule 26.03, subd. 19(7) (verdict forms); Rule 26.03, subd. 20(5) (polling the jury); and Rule 26.04, subd. 1 (new trial on aggravated sentence issue). The procedures provided in these rules for the determination of aggravated sentence issues supersede the procedures concerning those issues in Minnesota Statutes, section 244.10 (see 2005 Minnesota Laws, chapter 136, article 16, sections 3-6) or other statutes.

Rule 1.05, subd. 8(3) and (4) clarify that when charges from multiple counties are consolidated into a single ITV proceeding, each prosecutor having authority to charge the offenses and each defense attorney representing the defendant for any of those offenses may choose to attend the hearing in person or by ITV or to waive appearance. But the provision in paragraph (4) permitting one defense attorney to represent the defendant on all pending charges is not intended to be invoked by the court when a defense attorney is simply delayed by a proceeding occurring in another courtroom. Rather, the decision to attend the hearing is individual to the attorney.

The signatures of the following persons must be affixed electronically when a complaint is e-filed pursuant to Rule 1.06:

* the complainant, as required under Rule 2.01, subd. 1;

* the judge, court administrator, or notary public before whom a complaint is made upon oath, as required under Rule 2.01, subd. 2;

* the prosecutor, as required under Rule 2.02; and

* the judge, indicating a written finding of probable cause, as required under Rule 4.03, subd. 4.

There are currently no signature requirements in the rules for citations or tab charges.

It is anticipated that if a complaint is commenced electronically, and the technology becomes unavailable due to a system failure, any actor in the chain (e. g., prosecutor or judge) may need to print the complaint and proceed by filing a hard copy. If paper filing occurs, Rule 1.06, subd. 3, clarifies that any signatures affixed electronically and shown on the hard copy complaint are valid. It is also anticipated that certain complaints, including complaints and citations, filed by a prosecutor from a county other than the county of venue in a conflict case and complaints and citations filed by agencies without a federal Originating Agency Identification (ORI) number, must be filed on paper for the foreseeable future because the current e-filing system does not support electronic filing of those documents. The current e-filing system used for filing charging documents also does not support the creation and filing of an indictment; however, if a criminal case has already been initiated by the filing of a complaint, an indictment may be filed into that case by the prosecutor using the E-Filing system defined in Minnesota General Rules of Practice 14.

Electronic Notarization, as required under Rule 1.06, subd. 4, is governed by Minnesota Statutes, chapters 358 and 359.