State v. Mickelson

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Elliott

    133 N.H. 759 (N.H. 1990)   Cited 20 times
    Explaining that an amendment of an indictment may be impermissible if it prejudices the defendant "either in his ability to understand properly the charges against him or in his ability to prepare his defense"

    Second, the variance would not affect or prejudice Elliott's "substantial rights." State v. Kilgus, 128 N.H. 577, 585, 519 A.2d 231, 237 (1986); State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17 (Minn.App. 1985); State v. Toney, 680 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984). This decision cannot be fairly reconciled with our decision in State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 480 A.2d 906 (1984).

  2. State v. Fry

    No. A18-1837 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2019)

    But a complaint may be amended at any time during trial, and the district court did so here by instructing the jury that it could find Fry guilty if he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the CVO offenses. See State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). The criminal rules permit amendment of a complaint "at any time before verdict . . . if no additional or different offense is charged and if the defendant's substantial rights are not prejudiced."

  3. State v. Labatte

    No. A18-0926 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    But Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.05 applies to amendments to a complaint only after trial has begun. State v. Alexander, 290 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn. 1980) (holding that rule 17.05 did not apply to an amendment after a mistrial and before the start of a second trial); State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn. App. 1985) ("The supreme court has interpreted Rule 17.05 to apply only to motions to amend after the commencement of trial."), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). When a complaint is amended before trial, the relevant standard is contained in Minn. R. Crim. P. 3.04. Alexander, 290 N.W.2d at 748.

  4. State v. Ellis

    No. A16-1415 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017)

    In Nelson v. State, 407 N.W.2d 729, 731 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Aug. 12, 1987), we held that a defendant is not prejudiced by amendment of a complaint on the day of trial if the new charge "arose from the same conduct" as the other offense. See State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17, 19-20 (Minn. App. 1985) (determining district court did not abuse its discretion by amending complaint on first day of trial and then proceeding without a continuance), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). That is the situation here.

  5. State v. Whitley

    649 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the critical-impact test was satisfied "because the district court's order was based on its interpretation of a rule of criminal procedure that bars further prosecution of respondent"

    Minn.R.Crim.P. 3.04, subd. 2, provides that pretrial proceedings may be continued to allow the state to file a new complaint, provided that the prosecution moves for a continuance on the grounds that (1) the original complaint does not properly describe or name the defendant or the offense charged; or (2) based on the evidence presented at the pretrial proceeding, it appears that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant has also committed additional offenses and the prosecution intends to charge the defendant with these offenses. See generally State v. Doeden, 309 Minn. 544, 546-47, 245 N.W.2d 233, 234 (1976) (per curiam); State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 1985) ("Under Minn.R.Crim.P. 3.04, subd. 2, a new complaint may be filed during pretrial proceedings." (citations omitted)), review denied (Minn.

  6. Thomas v. State of Minnesota

    No. C3-96-2341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 1997)

    The state may amend its complaint any time prior to the commencement of trial. Because the amendment to the complaint occurred before the commencement of trial, Minn.R.Crim.P. 17.05 does not apply. State v.Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986) (holding that rule 17.05 does not apply where the complaint was amended prior to the commencement of trial); see also State v.Alexander, 290 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.

  7. Ouellette by Ouellette v. Subak

    379 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    This should be particularly true in this case where there was evidence to support giving the requested instruction and that instruction was in accord with applicable law. See Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, 375 N.W.2d 861 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); Lhotka v. Larson, 307 Minn. 121, 125 n. 7, 238 N.W.2d 870, 874 n. 7 (1976); Poppenhagen v. Sornsin Construction Co., 300 Minn. 73, 81, 220 N.W.2d 281, 286 (1974); See also State v. Mickelson, 378 N.W.2d 17 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). In Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, 283 N.W.2d 362, 367 (Minn.