Granting State's Motion to Reopen Case in Chief in Response to Defense Motion For Judgment of Acquittal Not an Abuse of Discretion

State v. Thomas, Minn.S.Ct., 3/22/2017.  Well, timing is everything. During Mr. Thomas' trial for gross misdemeanor DWI - which requires proof of two or more prior impaired driving incidents -  the state neglected to offer into evidence those prior impaired driving incidents. Defense counsel pounced on that, moving for a judgment of acquittal. This flummoxed the trial judge, who immediately fled to chambers. This let the prosecutor catch her breath.  The minute the trial judge took the bench she shot up to request to reopen her case in chief.  Defense counsel complained that permitting the state to reopen it case in chief would be really unfair because she only knew to make the request after the defense asked for the judgment of acquittal.  The trial judge allowed the state to reopen, she introduced the aforesaid prior convictions and that was that.

Chief Justice Gildea says unfair or not it's okay to permit the state to reopen its case in response to a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal, agreeing with both the trial court and the court of appeals. She points to the language of the pertinent rule, 26.03, subd. 18(2), which says that when the defense moves for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the state's case the trial court "must rule on the motion."  The language, however, does not say that the court must "immediately" rule on the motion.  The chief says that the purpose of the rule requiring the trial court to rule on the motion is to protect the defense from having to come forward with evidence that would fill the gaps in the state's case. Since the defense here had no intention of filling anyone's gaps the purpose of the rule is maintained, ignoring, or course, that this interpretation harms the defense by giving the state a second bite at the apple.

That just leaves the unfairness of the whole thing.  But it's not fairness, it's discretion.  The court has no difficulty deciding that the trial court had not abused its discretion by granting the two motions - the reopening motion and the acquittal motion - in reverse order.