January 24, 2024, Minnesota Supreme Court Update:
Supreme Court Releases One Criminal Law Opinion:
State v. Abdus-Salam, A22-1551 (Minn. Jan. 24, 2024)
On January 24, 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court released one criminal opinion—State v. Abdus-Salam, A22-1551 (Minn. Jan. 24, 2024). The supreme court determined that a motor vehicle can be considered a “dangerous weapon” under Minnesota Statutes section 609.02, subdivision 6.
In Abdus-Salam, the defendant was charged with second-degree riot with a dangerous weapon under Minnesota Statutes § 609.71, subdivision 2 for his involvement in a “takeover”—dozens of vehicles and large crowds of pedestrians block off intersections and drivers “spin donuts” in the intersection.
The question before the supreme court was whether a motor vehicle constitutes a “dangerous weapon” under section 609.02, subdivision 6.
Section 609.02, subdivision 6 defines dangerous weapon as follows:
[A]ny firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or instrumentality that, in the manner it used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm, or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily harm.
Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6
The supreme court determined that the term “likely,” as used in the manner-of-use definition for “dangerous weapon,” is unambiguous and means “probable or reasonably expected.” The supreme court then concluded that “[t]he facts in the record could support a jury finding that the vehicles were likely to produce death or great bodily harm based on the manner in which they were being used.” As a result, the supreme court held that, because a jury could find the vehicles were “dangerous weapons,” the district court erred when it granted the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the second-degree riot charges for lack of probable cause.
