Cited by

(stating that “a criminal complaint is an assertion, not evidence”).

But CRIMJIGs “are not the law.”

(“Where there is a conflict between the Minnesota Jury Instructions Guide, Criminal (CRIMJIG) and the statute or our case law, the latter two control.” ()); (noting that model jury instructions “are not the law”).

Although we cite CRIMJIG 27.12 herein for its persuasive value, we are mindful that, “[w]here there is a conflict between the Minnesota Jury Instructions Guide, Criminal (CRIMJIG) and the statute or our case law, the latter two control.” (stating that jury instructions “are not the law”).

’” State v. Valdez , n.3 (Minn. App. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Pierce , ), rev. granted (Minn. Jan.

“Where there is a conflict between the Minnesota Jury Instructions Guide, Criminal (CRIMJIG) and the statute or our case law, the latter two control.” (stating that jury instructions “are not the law”).

We have explained that section 627.01, subdivision 1, provides the accused with the right to be prosecuted in the county or district where the offense occurred thereby making venue “an essential element of every criminal offense.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subd.

The model jury instructions “are not the law; they are merely a committee of the Minnesota District Judges Association ’s attempt to summarize the law for the convenience of the parties and the trial court.”

We reiterate that model jury instructions “are not the law” and are merely an “attempt to summarize the law for the convenience of the parties and the [district] court.”

That statutory provision codified the constitutional right to be prosecuted in the county or district where the crime was committed and made venue “an essential element of every criminal offense.” State v. Pierce , (citing Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subd.

Minn. Stat. § 627.01; (rejecting argument that venue is proper only where an illegal e-mail was sent); United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477, 480 (2d Cir. 1985) (“It is clear [that when] the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime 7 crime of false reportin

The state bears the burden to prove every element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and venue is an element of every criminal offense

23, 2022); (venue challenge in court-trial context); Daniels, d at 647 (venue challenge in “Lothenbach trial” context); (venue challenge in jury-trial context); see also Eibensteiner, d at 144 (venue challenge in grand-jury context

Moreover, the model jury instructions “are not the law,” they are merely a MDJA committee’s “attempt to summarize the law for the convenience of the parties and the [district] court.”

We have previously held that the Minnesota Legislature “codified” this right to venue “as an essential element of every criminal offense.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subd.

at “the plea petition and colloquy may be supplemented by other evidence to establish the factual basis for a plea.” d at 589 (emphasis 11 opportunity to emphasize that “a criminal complaint is an assertion, not evidence; it merely details the allegations that establish the elements of the crime charged and that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.” State v. Pierce

A district court abuses its discretion “when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the fa cts in the record.” Riley v. State , 833 (Minn. 2011).

d 140, 150 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Ali contends that jurisdiction is “no less indispensable to a conviction than is a fact establishing venue,” and that because the court of appeals has required that venue be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, we should apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to jurisdiction as well.