The Minnesota Court of Appeals agrees with Anders Erickson’s arguments and dismisses State’s pre-trial appeal.

In State v. Ross, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted Anders Erickson’s request to dismiss the State’s pre-trial appeal because the State did not meet its burden of establishing that the district court’s pre-trial ruling would have a critical impact on the State’s ability to prosecute its case.

After the State failed to comply with the district court’s discovery deadlines for obtaining and testing DNA samples, the district court precluded the State from introducing DNA evidence at Mr. Ross’ trial.

The State filed a pre-trial appeal and requested that the court of appeals reverse the district court’s order precluding DNA evidence.

The court of appeals agreed with Anders Erickson’s argument that because the State did not obtain a valid DNA sample and therefore did not create a DNA report, the State could not establish that the district court’s ruling precluding DNA evidence—evidence that the State did not have—would have a critical impact on the State’s ability to prosecute its case. State v. Ross, A24-0647 (Minn. App. Dec. 9, 2024).