Tracy M. Smith Judge
Morrison County District Court File No. 49-CR-21-12
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Tracy M. Smith Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court's order dismissing a charge of threats of violence against respondent Jason Bruce Lloyd under Minn. R. Crim. P. 30.02 for unnecessary delay in bringing Lloyd to trial.
2. In August 2019, the state charged Lloyd with committing threats of violence after he allegedly went to a city employee's home and threatened the employee after Lloyd's water was turned off.
3. A jury trial began on October 26, 2020. Following jury selection but before the jury was sworn, the state notified the district court that one of its witnesses-the employee's wife who had been home during the incident-had COVID-19 symptoms. The state requested a continuance due to the unavailability of this witness. The district court denied the request. The following day, the state made a motion on the record to continue the trial because of the witness's unavailability due to illness. The district court denied the motion. The state immediately dismissed the complaint under Minn. R. Crim. P. 30.01 and indicated its intent to bring charges again later.
4. On January 5, 2021, the state filed a complaint asserting the same charge against Lloyd. Lloyd filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Minn. R. Crim. P. 30.02.
5. The district court granted Lloyd's motion. The state now appeals.
6. We review a district court's dismissal under rule 30.02 for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Olson, 884 N.W.2d 395, 397-98 (Minn. 2016). "A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
7. Rule 30.02 states: "The court may dismiss the complaint, indictment, or tab charge if the prosecutor has unnecessarily delayed bringing the defendant to trial." For dismissal to be warranted under rule 30.02, the defendant must make a showing of prejudice. State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254, 257 n.5 (Minn. 2006) ("We have required a showing of prejudice for dismissal under [rule 30.02]."); State v. Banks, 875 N.W.2d 338, 344 (Minn.App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2016) (stating that rule 30.02 "requires a defendant to show prejudice to his case before dismissal is warranted").
8. The district court found that the state had unnecessarily delayed in bringing the defendant to trial. The district court noted that "the unavailable witness was not the alleged victim and that the alleged victim was available to testify and that it was able to proceed." The district court found "that the delay in recharging the case was an unnecessary delay as Covid 19 protocols would not have required a delay of approximately two months for the witness to be safely available."
9. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court abused its discretion in making the finding of unnecessary delay.
10. The district court, however made no finding of prejudice to Lloyd's case as a result of the delay.
11. Because the district court dismissed the complaint without a finding of prejudice, it erred in its application of rule 30.02 and thus abused its discretion. We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed and remanded.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.