*1 else their anyone used vehicle—chil- Mends, dren, spouse they criminally open of alcohol any liable containers present, regardless of whether
that are containers there. This
they know the operator of a any prudent
also means that carefully vehicle must also check
motor
any packaged case of alcohol trans-
port and ensure that each container’s seal §
is not broken. See 169.122 Minn.Stat.
(defining open an bottle as a container that open, re- partially contents broken).
moved, or has the seal Under majority’s interpretаtion, all of these
situations would render driver crimi- §
nally liable under Minn.Stat. 169.122. a more
Without clear statement law,
legislature I this is the cannot
agree with such outcome.
PAGE, (dissenting). Justice join
I in the dissent of Justice Paul H.
Anderson.
STRINGER, (dissenting). Justice join in the dissent of Paul H. Justice
Anderson. Minnesota, Appellant,
STATE SCAIFE, Respondent.
James Scott
Court of Denied
Review
16, 1999, County. jury for a trial in Dakota driving Scaife had three with- prior (DAW) convictions, but had main- drawal a license since 1998. tained current driver’s jail if he or lost Scaife stated that went to con- he would lose his driver’s job. accepted The trial court struction plea, him to serve guilty sentenced County in the Dakota Jail with days served, days for time of electron- credit priv- with work release monitoring ic home a fínе of year probation, ileges, one $390, stayed adjudication over objection. prosecution’s ISSUE General, Hatch, Paul, Attorney Mike St. the trial aсt within its authori- Did Molenda, Apple Valley Michael E. ty by adjudication in this case? Attorney, appellant. City for Stuart, Defender, M. State Public John ANALYSIS Rosenberg, Statе Leslie Joan Assistant prosecutor has “a broad While Defender, respon- for Minneapolis, Public charging discretion the exercise dent. 540, function,” Foss, State v. 556 N.W.2d (Minn.1996), adjudication and decided Considered a trial “inherent within court’s CRIPPEN, TOUSSAINT, Judge, Chief “special cir power” FOLEY, Judge.* Judge, and Krotzer, cumstances.” 254-55 OPINION judicial power impose court’s inherent “sparing is to be used TOUSSAINT, stay Judge. Chief ly avoiding for the only purpose challenges State of Minnesota Appellant injustiсe prosecutor’s from imposition stay the trial court’s in the exercise of dear abuse required adjudication. special Because Foss, сharging function.” 556 N.W.2d exist, stay such a did not circumstances for (emphasis original). at 541 we reverse. court, in the trial evident FACTS deciding adjudication, relied upon nеeded his privi- Scaife’s statement he Respondent driving James Scaife’s April appar- driver’s fícense order work. leges were cancelled might driving possibility while intoxicated that a defendant lose ently due (DWI) ago as a result of a conviction not 15 to 20 approximately justifying Scaife was circumstаnce” September Wisconsin. objec driving after cancellation. stopped Twiss, tion. See State v. 570 N.W.2d appear pre- at his initial Scaife fаiled (Minn.1997) date, “possibility (holding and exe- 487 warrant was issued job if cuted, might defendant appeared August then lose convicted and Scaife * Const, VI, § judge Ap- Minn. art. Retired of Minnesota Court serving by pursuant peals, appointment punish senselessly, misdemeanor malicious should suffer gross he should special job. not circum lose ment of a child was stance”). pre desire to The trial court’s reason, If no other these appeals loss consequence
vent the collateral succeed because condone “does itself consti driver’s license *3 prosecutorial this pursuit, lending support warranting a ‘special tute circumstances’ public deformation of the office of pros- adjudication.” stay of wholly foreign ecutor into function that is (Minn.Apр.1997), aff'd the to model for democratic mem. society. regard, In this it to compelling is Whatever the cancellation of reason the keep us rеmarkable words attrib- Scaife’s driver’s there is no evi giant profession, uted to a Hennepin prosecutor dence that the has abused his Olson, County Attornеy Floyd B. in 1930: in charging And respondent. County Attorney, As tried be I’ve to caselaw, under the Minnesota loss of justice minister of than police- rather loss of the a driver’s license are man. I do not a prosecutor believe that justify sufficient circumstances” to always pride point with to the over the number has convictions he secured. objection. The its exceeded justice The administration of often in in authority staying this leniency means is frequently it to case. soсiety the put best interests of wayward lad back with his home instead DECISION of in prison. adju- The district court erred in may sync Sentiments like these be loss of driv- dication basеd prosecutors, with the aims of some modern subsequent possible er’s license and loss of profoundly important but to the employment, which did constitute system government in which we live. “special circumstances.” Dishonor the ideal reflects not obso- its Reversed. judgment lescence but instead the bad prаctitioners. another generation
CRIPPEN, Judge (dissenting),
course,
Of
there is
in
more involved
instructive,
It
seems
in
first
here and
appeals
these
than
directed at
mеanness
appeals,
other Krotzer-Foss-Thoma
to ask
prose-
misdemeanants.
vision
the
why
appeal
against
the
is initiated. As
the
differently,
cutor
aimed
but
is
toward
defendant, the state seeks what is unwor-
goal
equally
target
that is
distasteful. The
thy
pursue,
pound
of flesh. The trial
authority
judges,
is to diminish the
of trial
alreаdy imposed
court has
substantial con-
to make them subservient to the will of the
defendant,
including
ditions
the
in-
in
prosecution
disposition
the
criminal
fine,
carсeration, a
supervision,
that
cause,
cases. For
students of Ameri-
protect the interests of
public safety.
judicial
can
administration have become
fact,
is so
the
mat-
often
case
these
the
the
independence
convinced
ters,
especially ample
the conditions arе
A
judiciary
alarming
has suffered
erosion.
light
wrong
been done
modicum of concern for its
defendant;
undisputed
the
it is
in this
sleeping
independence
should not bе
matter that the
is
defendant’s lawlessness
encroachments,
through
thinly
veiled
mostly failing
record-keeping
undo
pursuit
public safety,
the
from another
wrongful
errors
with a
act done
associated
government.
branch of
Although nominally
ago.
justice,
pursued
the interests of
this
Can
courts be
It
the
roused?
remains
nothing
is
morе that the
to be
of crimi-
assertion
seen.
conditional
proceedings
the defendant
nal
a historic element of
Prabhudail,
discretion, certainly
support
strengthen it. It is even reports confident
ing to hear *4 in the judges acting some spirit respect appellate authority— nothing to do say they will have
who stays adjudication, acceding com- pletely regаrd demands VIKING ENGINEERING appear before them. prosecutors who DEVELOPMENT, & the role Because of these concerns about INC., Respondent, of the and the function judiciary, the substance independent longer should no be determined with-
issue ENTERPRISES, INC., R.S.B. substantially greater deference al., Appellants. et court discrеtion than is stated Foss. Equally important, we should agree to the trial court’s exercise examine Court I am not con of discretion this case. defensiblе. As vinced Thoma is continuously wisely
Judge Randall has Review Denied said, right can be no state’s
greater right parties than the sentence or the
dispute misdemeanor
right question the state to dismissal justice. State v. Prabhu
the interests
dail, (Minn.App.1999)
(Randall, J., dissenting); State v. (Minn.App.1997)
(Randall, J., dissenting). Stays later case, dispositions
dismissal are sen They lieu
tencing decisions. occur in
trial, always accompanying plea almost guilty, preliminary are not They prosecutor’s judg affect the
trial. pros- sentencing but do not affect
ment my charges.
ecutorial discretion to file of these
opinion, the characterization pre-trial decisions indefensible.
Judge Randall with the Minneso- pleads enjoyed,
ta what it has defend reputation for fairness and “nationwide
stability justice system.” in its criminal