Cited by

“A case is functionally justiciable if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the issues raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial decision-making.” see also Snell, d at 284 (determining case to be functionally justiciable because “the issues are primarily legal and were well-briefed by the parties”); (determining question to be functionally 7 Because OCM has the burd

11 We may avoid the mootness doctrine and exercise our discretion to consider the merits of an issue if the issue is “ ‘functionally justiciable’ and presents an important question of ‘statewide significance that should be decided immediately.’ ” Dean, d at 6 ()

But mootness “is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically whenever the underlying dispute between the particular parties is settled or otherwise resolved.”

“A case is functionally justiciable if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the issue raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial decision-making.”

(“[T]he mootness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically whenever the underlying dispute between the particular parties is settled or otherwise resolved.”).

Florence, d at 901-02 (citing Gerstein v Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)).

An appellate court may consider the merits of an appeal that is technically moot if it “is ‘functionally justiciable’ and presents an important question of ‘statewide significance that should be decided immediately.’” Dean, d at 6 ().

There are two discretionary exceptions to the general rule requiring dismissal of moot actions: first, “when an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade judicial review,” State v. Brooks , second, when a case is “functionally justiciable” and of “statewide significance,”

” State v. Rud , , 579 (Minn. 1984).

(“[P]roduction of exonerating evidence by a defendant at the probable cause hearing does not justify the dismissal of the charges if the record establishes that the prosecutor possessed substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify denial of a motion for a directed

Rather, our caselaw recognizes two exceptions to the jurisdictional rule requiring dismissal of a moot appeal: (1) “when an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade judicial review,” State v. Brooks , and (2) when a case is “functionally justiciable” and of “statewide significance.”

“A case is functionally justicia ble if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the issues raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial decision-making.”

But “the moot ness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automa tically whenever the underlying dispute between the particular parties is settled or otherwise resolved.”

n.1 (Minn. 1984) (noting the difficulty child victims have in naming precise dates of offenses).

See, (explaining that mootness is a “flexible discretionary doctrine”) .

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 would justify denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal); see State v. Koenig , , 376 (Minn. 2003) (Page, J., dissenting) ("[T]he state must establish probable cause for

A case is not moot if it is “functionally justiciable” and presents an important public issue “of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.”

But “the mootness doctrine is a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically.”

We ordinarily dismiss an appeal as 5 moot “when a dispute between two litigants is settled or in some other way resolved during the pendency of an appeal.”

(stating that an issue is moot if a court is unable to grant effectual relief); (stating that an issue is moot if an event occurs that resolves the issue or renders it impossible to grant effective relief).

However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that a criminal defendant at a pretrial hearing is not entitled to “the full panoply of adversarial safeguards such as witness confrontation, cross-examination, and compulsory process for witnesses.” see also Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct.

Mootness is a “flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically.”

(“Nothing we say today prevents a defendant from taking the stand at the omnibus hearing and denying his guilt or from otherwise producing witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would exonerate him.”).

("Nothing we say today prevents a defendant from taking the stand at the omnibus hearing and denying his guilt or from otherwise producing witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would exonerate him.").

(explaining that a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to support the charged offense should be denied if the record establishes that "the prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that will be admissible at trial and that would justify denial of a motion” for a judgment of acquittal); State