Opinion
A21-0253
11-08-2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jonathan Richard Tollefson, Appellant.
Lake County District Court File No. 38-CR-20-259
Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
James B. Florey Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant was cited for misdemeanor speeding in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14 subd. 2(a)(2) (2020), and expired tabs in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.79 subd. 1 (2020). The citation was filed with Lake County District Court, and a bench trial was scheduled. One week prior to trial, appellant filed a pro se motion for change of venue, arguing that, based on appellant's own calculations, the trooper stopped him in Saint Louis County rather than Lake County.
2. The district court considered appellant's motion on the day of the bench trial. After hearing the parties' arguments and reviewing the record, the district court denied appellant's motion, but reminded appellant that respondent was required to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt at trial to convict appellant of the charged offense.
3. At the bench trial, the district court heard testimony from both appellant and the trooper and found appellant guilty of both offenses.
4. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to transfer venue without making findings or receiving evidence from respondent.
Appellant also challenged the Lake County District Court's power to hear the case and the State's pre-trial burden to establish proper venue, however, those issues are not before the Court on appeal.
5. Venue is proper in "any county where any element of the offense was committed." Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subd. 1 (2020). Unless a specialized venue rule applies, a criminal case must be heard in the county where the offense occurred. Minn. R. Crim. P. 24.01; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. District courts have broad discretion when deciding motions for changes of venue, and we will sustain such decisions absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466, 473 (Minn. 1999).
6. The district court heard arguments from appellant and respondent regarding venue and reviewed the trooper's description of the offense included in the citation, which identified the location of the offense as Lake County. The district court acted within its discretion by denying appellant's motion and proceeding to trial, where respondent was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speeding offense took place in Lake County.
Significantly, appellant does not challenge the judgment of conviction where the district court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred in Lake County.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.