Summary
remanding for findings where district court failed to make factual findings justifying suppression order
Summary of this case from State v. HarrellOpinion
No. 43570.
September 15, 1972.
Criminal law — search and seizure — order suppressing evidence — remand on appeal for findings of fact.
Appeal by the state from an order of the Martin County District Court, L. J. Irvine, Judge, granting a motion by Kevin Wicklund to suppress certain evidence in a proceeding wherein he was charged with possession of marijuana. Remanded.
Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Elton A. Kuderer, County Attorney, and David McKenna, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and Doris O. Huspeni, Assistant State Public Defender, for respondent.
Heard and considered en banc.
The state appeals from an order by the district court suppressing marijuana which police officers without a warrant seized from defendant. At the Rasmussen hearing, two police officers testified on behalf of the state concerning the events that led up to the search and seizure of the evidence suppressed by the court. Three witnesses contradicted portions of the police officers' testimony. No useful purpose would be served in reciting all of the testimony in detail.
The trial court, in suppressing the seized marijuana, relied on State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 190 N.W.2d 631 (1971), and State v. Gannaway, 291 Minn. 391, 191 N.W.2d 555 (1971).
We are not in position to review this case because of the absence of any findings of fact. The memorandum of the court is not helpful in this case as to fact questions as it does not comment on the evidence. We do not know if the trial court accepted as true all of the testimony on behalf of the state and nevertheless suppressed the evidence or if the conflicting testimony of defendant was the basis for the decision. The cause is, therefore, remanded in order that the district court may make findings of fact.
Remanded.
MR. JUSTICE MacLAUGHLIN, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.