Cited by

The probable-cause question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the State can prove every element of a crime—“facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, [that] would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.” –04 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); d 386, 396 (Minn. 2025).6 If such facts do exist, then the State may introduce whatever admissible evidence it chooses to prove its case.

Put differently, a district court should deny a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause “if the facts before the district court ‘present a fact question for the jury’s determination’ on each element of the crime charged.” (-75 (Minn. 2005) (stating that the test for granting a motion for a directed verdict is whether there is sufficient evidence “to present a fact question for the jury’s determination, after viewing the evidence and all resulting inferences in favor of

Appellate courts “review factual findings underlying a probable cause determination using the clear error standard, but review the district court’s application of the legal standard of probable cause to those facts de novo.”

In State v. Lopez, the supreme court noted that the 1993 amendment to include defendants “merely charged with predatory offenses” sought “to ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements .” (citing 1993 Minn. Laws ch. 326, art. 10, § 1, at 2090).

(stating that probable cause to charge an individual with a crime requires “facts .

-07 (Minn. 2010); Berry, d at 185-191.

(explaining that a 4 Schouviller does not claim that the facts underlying both charges arose out of separate sets of circumstances.

The district court should deny a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause “if the facts before the district court present a fact question for the jury’s determination on each element of the crime charged.” (quotation omitted).

The purpose of the offender registration requirement under Minn. Stat. § 243.166 is “to ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements.”

Appellate courts “review the district court’s application of the legal standard of probable cause to [the] facts de novo.” (citation omitted).

the supreme court has reviewed predatory-offender registration requirements in criminal appeals.

F. Probable cause exists if “facts have been submitted to the district court showing a reasonable probability that the person committed the crime.” d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010).

We review “factual findings underlying a probable cause determination using the clear error standard, but review the district court’s application of the legal standard of probable cause to those facts de novo.”

-04 (Minn. 2010) (“A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied where 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.” (quotation omitted)).

Identical circumstances are not required; we instead analyze whether the circumstances overlap in terms of “time, location, persons involved, and basic facts.”

A district court should deny a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause “if the facts before [it] present a fact question for the jury’s determination on each element of the crime charged.” (quotation omitted).

at 729 (second alteration in original) (–704 (Minn. 2010)).5 Next, the court of appeals distinguished the standard of proof for conviction from the standard of proof for probable cause to charge, noting that the latter is a lower standard.

the supreme court explained the meaning of section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), as follows: The “same set of circumstances” provision in the statute requires registration where the same general group of facts gives rise to both the conviction offense and the charged 1We question whether the part

d 700, 704-05 (Minn. 2010).

“[T]he threshold factual showing of probable cause necessary to support a charge is low.”

The purpose of requiring offenders to register when they are merely charged with, but not convicted of, a predatory offense is “to ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements.”

Appellant argues that two Minnesota Supreme Court decisions , State v. Berry , (remanding to district court to vacate court -imposed registration requirement) (holding district court erred by finding defendants were subject to predatory -offender registration) demonstrate that imposing registration requirements is necessarily a judicial function .

-15 (Minn. 1999); (reviewing de novo the application of section 243.166 to undisputed facts).

But in 1993, t he Legislature amended Minnesota’s predatory registration statute to also require registration for persons who are simply charged with predatory offenses, as long as they are convicted of “another offense arising out of the sam e set of circumstances.” See Act of May 20, 1993, ch. 326, art. 10, § 1, 1993 Minn. Laws 1974, 2090; State v. Lopez , (suggesting that the purpose of the 1993 amendment was to prevent defendants from using plea agreem ents t o avoid registratio n).3 We have

(stating that motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied when evidence, if proved at trial, would preclude judgment of acquittal); (explaining that consuming intoxicants does not prove intoxication and intoxication does not prove

The registration statute “applies to persons charged with certain crimes even if they are not convicted .”

See State v. Lopez , (stating that the application of a statute to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo).

State v. Lopez , , 705 (Minn. 2010).

In State v. Lopez , , 704 (Minn. 2010), the supreme court recognized that the registration statute mandates registration for offenders charged with, but not necessarily convicted of, predatory offenses to "ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements ...."