Cited by

brings the charge against the [alleged offender] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Koenig , n.2 (Minn. 2003) (citing State v. Florence , ).

to require the defendant to stand trial.” see Minn. R. Crim.

5 A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied when “the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.”

But in October 2022, the task force reactivated the CI to work for 2 When a defendant moves to dismiss, the district court “will make the critical determination based on all the information contained in the files and records as of [the omnibus hearing], including reliable hearsay in whole or in part.” (quotation omitted).

When making this determination, “[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

“[U]nder these circumstances, a district court should deny a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause if it is ‘satisfied that the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a [judgment] of acquittal if proved at trial.’ ” –93 (Minn. 2022) ().

-901 (Minn. 1976); Minn. R. Crim P. 11.04, subd.

at 392-93 (alteration in original) ( 5 (Minn. 1976)).

ery expedition.” But the two main collateral functions of pretrial hearings, such as suppression hearings, are (1) for “the defendant to engage in a form of discovery,” and (2) perpetuation of testimony on both sides—the defendant has an opportunity to confront the state’s witnesses against them, and the prosecution gets to “assess the credibility of [its own] witnesses.”

3 When a defendant moves to dismiss, the district court “will make the critical determination based on all the information contained in the files and records as of [the omnibus hearing], including reliable hearsay in whole or in part.” (quotation omitted).

At this stage, “[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that if the state elects to rely on the verified charging document as proof of probable cause , the defendant produces exonerating witness testimony, and the state presents no rebuttal testimony, a motion to dismiss for lack of probabl e cause “will be granted unless there is substantial

1(c), for the proposition that a “court may find probable cause based on the complaint or the entire record, including reliable hearsay.” See, e.g. , State v. Florence , (permitting district court to rely on police report in probable-cause challenge).

brings the charge agains t the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” ().

brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).

brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Florence , 306 Minn. 442 , 446, , 896 (1976) (quotation omitted).

State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 447 n.4, 453-54, -97 n.4, 900 (1976).

See State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 456, see also Minn. R. Crim.

Next, appellant entered a “Lothenbach plea” to fifth-degree possession 1 In accordance with State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457, the state’s probable-cause packet contained the complaint, police reports, and a number of related documents, which the district court could rely on in making a finding of probable cause.

Probable cause for a grand jury indictment depends on “whether the evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” (quoting State v. 4 Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446, ).

brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446, (quotation omitted).

It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, ” n.2 (Minn. 2003).

Had we not decided the substantive issue in Rud immediately, the court of appeals’ holding, which was erroneous in light of our decision in State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , could have resulted in the broad use of probable cause hearings as ‘“a substitute for disclosure and discovery.’ ” Rud, d at 578 (quoting Florence, 306 Minn. at 450 , d at 898 ).

do not justify a trial.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446-47 , (emphasis added).

brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , (quotation omitted).

State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442

brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , (quotation omitted).

It has been said that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 445-46 , (emphasis omitted) (quoting State ex rel.