Supreme Court Digest: Jan. 24, 2024

Criminal

Riot

Dangerous Weapons

This appeal requires an interpretation of the statutory definition of “dangerous weapon” in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6, a portion of which allows an ordinary object to be considered a dangerous weapon based on the way in which the object is used. The State charged defendant with two counts of second-degree riot for his alleged organization of two intersection “takeovers.” The State argued that the vehicles used in the “takeovers” were transformed into dangerous weapons because of the way in which those vehicles were used. The District Court dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause that the vehicles were dangerous weapons. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the State alleged sufficient facts to show probable cause.

The Supreme Court held that (1) the term “likely” as used in the manner-of-use definition for “dangerous weapon” under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6, is unambiguous and means “probable or reasonably expected;” and (2) the District Court erred when it dismissed two second-degree riot charges for lack of probable cause because sufficient facts in the record precluded granting a motion for a judgment of acquittal if proved at trial. Affirmed.

A22-1551 State v. Abdus-Salam (Court of Appeals)

Orders

Rules of Client Security Board

Amendments

Reviewing amendments proposed by the by the Client Security Board, the Supreme Court generally adopted the proposals. The amendments were both substantive and housekeeping. The amendments are effective July 1, 2024.

ADM10-8005 Order Promulgating Amends. to R. Minn. Client Sec. Bd.