900 N.W.2d 890
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 2016 Prigge was stopped for suspected drunk driving; an inventory search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun in the center console.
- The state charged Prigge with, among other offenses, carrying a pistol while under the influence in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.7142(1)(4).
- Prigge moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause; the district court granted the motion, concluding the pistol in the console was not “on or about the person’s clothes or person.”
- The state appealed the pretrial dismissal; the appealability question depended on whether the dismissal presented a legal question and whether it had a critical impact on the prosecution.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and compared § 624.7142 with the broader § 624.714 to determine the scope of “carry.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Prigge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court's pretrial dismissal is appealable | Dismissal based on statutory interpretation (question of law); dismissal critically impacts prosecution | Dismissal was proper; not contested as to appealability | Appealable: dismissal rested on question of law and met critical-impact test |
| Whether “carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person” includes a pistol in a vehicle console | Phrase can be read broadly to encompass a pistol transported inside a vehicle | Phrase requires a physical nexus between pistol and the person or the person’s clothes; console storage lacks that nexus | Held: “carry…on or about the person’s clothes or person” requires a physical nexus; pistol in center console does not satisfy statute; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Larson, 895 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. App. 2017) (interpreting “carry” to include transporting a pistol in a closed gun case on one’s person)
- State v. Osorio, 891 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 2017) (explaining the critical-impact requirement for state appeals)
- State v. Lugo, 887 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. 2016) (permitting appellate review on the merits once critical impact is established)
- State v. Kiminski, 474 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. App. 1991) (statutory construction is a question of law)
- Kutscheid v. Emerald Square Props., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. App. 2009) (courts may not add language omitted by the legislature)