State v. Larson

Per Curiam. This case is before this court upon certification by the Washington County Municipal Court of the following question: When a judge, sitting as trier of fact, orders a mistrial without the consent of defendant, on the grounds that the court has been prejudiced by certain irregularities occurring after all the evidence was in, should a plea of former jeopardy be sustained in a new trial? The question was purportedly certified pursuant to Minn. St. 632.10. Defendant was before the municipal court on charges of disorderly conduct, Minn. St. 1969, § 609.72, and making an anonymous telephone call with intent to threaten or harass, Minn. St. 609.79, subd. 1(1) (b). It is settled law that, in a criminal proceeding, questions which in the opinion of the trial court are so important and doubtful as to require a decision by this court, may be certified pursuant to § 632.10 for our consideration in two instances only: (1) Where the question arises upon demurrer or special plea to an indictment, or (2) following conviction in a district court, where the question arose during trial. Since the certification proceeding is statutory, no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to consider a certified question absent one of those two situations. State v. Bristol, 276 Minn. 158 , 149 N. W. 2d 84 (1967); State v. Smith, 116 Minn. 228 , 133 N. W. 614 (1911). Moreover, the statute allowing these proceedings is limited in its application to district court actions, and it has no application whatsoever to proceedings brought in *468 a municipal court. City of Duluth v. Orr, 109 Minn. 431 , 124 N. W. 4 (1910). This case not being properly before this court, the proceedings are dismissed and the cause remanded.