State of Minnesota v. Dale Lee Underdahl; Timothy Arlen Brunner

Summary

The Supreme Court of Minnesota considered whether the State had to demonstrate critical impact when appealing pretrial discovery orders and whether defendants were entitled to the complete source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The court held that critical impact is required for all State pretrial appeals, including discovery-order appeals, and that the State established critical impact. It affirmed reversal of the source-code production order in Dale Lee Underdahl’s case but reinstated the production order in Timothy Arlen Brunner’s case.

Holdings

1. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04 requires the State to demonstrate critical impact in every pretrial appeal, and there is no discovery-order exception.
2. The State demonstrated critical impact because noncompliance with the discovery orders would exclude the breath-test results and dismiss specified DWI charges, significantly reducing the likelihood of successful prosecution.
3. Underdahl failed to show that the Intoxilyzer source code may relate to his guilt or innocence; the district court therefore abused its discretion in ordering production.
4. Brunner made a sufficient showing that analysis of the source code might reveal defects affecting the reliability of the Intoxilyzer results and therefore relate to his guilt or innocence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering production.
5. The district courts did not abuse their discretion in finding that the source code was within the State's possession or control for purposes of Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State must demonstrate critical impact under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04 when appealing any pretrial order, including a criminal discovery order.
2. Whether the State demonstrated that the discovery orders would have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the defendants.
3. Whether the district courts abused their discretion in finding that the Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code was relevant and might relate to the defendants' guilt or innocence.
4. Whether the source code was within the possession or control of the State for purposes of Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded