State v. Sahr, 812 N.W.2d 83

State charged Sahr with first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his 8-year-old niece; jury instructions framed the element as hand-to-genital contact, prompting defense to seek genital-to-genital wording.
State sought to amend to add second-degree criminal sexual conduct; trial court refused, citing Rule 17.05 and prejudice concerns.
After dismissal of the complaint with prejudice on the State’s motion, the State sought to file a new complaint charging second-degree conduct; court denied, citing double jeopardy.
Appellate courts issued writs; on remand, trial court found the dismissal to be a finding of insufficient evidence to convict and that the second-degree charge was the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
Court of Appeals reversed; this Court granted review to address whether a defendant waives double jeopardy rights by not raising a known defect pre-jeopardy.
Majority holds the district court’s dismissal was an acquittal on the merits, precluding retrial on the second-degree offense; dissent argues defense rule violations should not foreclose double jeopardy protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dismissal amounted to an acquittal on the merits	State contends the dismissal functioned as acquittal, barring retrial	Sahr argues the dismissal was not an acquittal on the merits	Yes; dismissal as acquittal on the merits precludes retrial on the offense.
Whether double jeopardy bars filing a new second-degree charge	State asserts retrial on a lesser offense is barred by double jeopardy	Sahr asserts no bar given acquittal on the original charge	Yes; double jeopardy bars retrial on a different degree of the same offense.
Whether defendant waived double jeopardy protections by failing to raise a known defect pre-jeopardy	State could review waiver issue notwithstanding rule objections	Sahr's failure to raise defect pre-jeopardy should not protect against double jeopardy	Not decided; Large precludes merits review of waiver here.
Whether the defense’s post-jeopardy motion to dismiss reflected improper manipulation of process			Maj. avoids addressing merits; dissent provides critique of defense tactics (not binding).

State v. Large, 607 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 2000) (acquittal on merits bars review of underlying issues in double jeopardy context)
Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1978) (acquittal based on factual guilt determination bars further prosecution)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (post-verdict double jeopardy considerations; authority on acquittal effects)
State v. Holton, 88 Minn. 171 (Minn. 1902) (dismissal for variance between indictment and proof not final acquittal)
State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 2006) (state may refile after pretrial dismissal in interests of justice (distinguishes jeopardy attachment))