Cited by

State v. Lopez , , 704 (Minn. 2010) (indicating that a charge will not be dismissed for lack of probable cause if there is a fact question for the jury's determination on every element of the charged offense); State v. Rud , , 579 (Minn. 1984) (indicating that a charge will not be dismissed if there is evidence that wou

“A person may be charged with a crim e only where there is probable cause to believe that the person is guilty—that is, wher e facts have been submitted to the district court showing a reasonable probability th at the person committed the crime.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

the supreme court recognized that the registration statute mandates registration for offenders charged with, but not 11 necessarily convicted of, predatory offenses to “ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements.” Here, the district court conclude

-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.

(“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 predatory offense.”).

(reviewing de novo whether defendant was required to register as predatory offender); d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2012) (“Because resolution of [the issue of whether a defendant was required to register as a predatory offender] is based on interpretation of the offender- r

(“Minnesota Statutes § 243.166 mandates that a person ‘shall register’ as a predatory offender.”).

The offenses must be “sufficiently linked in time, location, people and events.”

And the legislature amended the statute two years later to include not only those convicted of predatory offenses but also those charged with a predatory offense and convicted of an offense arising out of the same circumstances to “ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements.”

the supreme court held that the purpose of Minnesota’s sex-offender-registration statute is “to ensure that true predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements,” d at 704 , not to vest prosecutors with unchecked authority to require defendants to register as sex offenders.

“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.” -04 (Minn.2010) (quotation omitted).

P. 2.01, 2.02; ("A person may be charged with a crime only where there is probable cause to believe that the person is guilty....

ertification is to submit important or doubtful questions of law and “not the general question of whether evidence shows or proves defendant to be guilty or innocent, which is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the jury, aided by the advice of the [district court] judge as to the law of the case.” State v. Moller, 276 Minn. 185, 187 , (“A person may be charged with a crime only where there is probable cause to believe that the person is guilty — that is, where facts have been subm

Indeed, the supreme court recently stated, “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.’ ” -04 (Minn.2010) (quoting *178 Florence , 306 Minn, at 459, d at 903 ).

Indeed, the supreme court recently stated, "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.'" -04 (Minn.2010) (quoting *178 Florence, 306 Minn. at 459 , d at 903 ).