Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 630. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 630.18 (2026)

Grounds For Dismissal; Waiver

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In addition to the grounds for dismissal of an indictment specified in rules 17.06, subdivision 2, and 18.09, subdivision 2, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and subject to the provisions of rules 17.06, subdivision 1, and 31.01, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the indictment shall be dismissed by the court in which the defendant is arraigned, upon the defendant's motion, in any of the following cases:

(1) when the indictment is not found, endorsed or presented as prescribed in sections 628.41 to 628.66 relating to grand juries;

(2) when the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not inserted at the foot of the indictment or endorsed thereon;

(3) when a person was permitted to be present at the session of the grand jury while the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration, except as provided by section 628.63 and rule 18.03 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure;

(4) when the grand jury by which the indictment was found had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, by reason of the offense charged not being within the local jurisdiction of the county;

(5) when the indictment does not substantially conform to the requirements of sections 628.10 to 628.13, as qualified by section 628.18, or was not found within the time prescribed therein;

(6) when more than one offense is charged in the indictment, except in cases where it is allowed by statute;

(7) when the facts stated do not constitute a public offense; or

(8) when the indictment contains any matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution.

If the motion to dismiss the indictment is not made, the defendant shall be precluded from afterwards making any of the foregoing objections except that the objection to lack of jurisdiction specified in clause (4) and the objection of failure of the indictment to include facts stating a public offense specified in clause (7) shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. Failure to include any objections constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for good cause shown may, in accordance with rule 10.01, subdivision 2, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, grant relief from the waiver.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1957–2004 · leading case: State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Minn.Stat. § 630.18 (2002); Minn. R.Crim.”
Dwire v. State, 381 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “The attorney shall not be permitted to participate in the grand jury proceedings except to advise and consult with the witness while he is testifying.”
State v. Thompson, 139 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1966). ““It shall receive none but legal evidence, and the best in degree to the exclusion of hearsay or secondary evidence, except when such evidence would be admissible on the trial of the accused for the offense charged,” and § 630.18, which, so far as material here, reads: “The…”
State v. Connelly, 82 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 1957). · cites it 3× “rance? (2) Was the testimony of the two accomplices sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction of the defendants? (3) Was it error to admit testimony of certain alleged unrelated and independent acts of the defendants? (4) Were defendants deprived of a fair trial by…”
State v. Drews, 144 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 1966). · cites it 2× “Section 630.18 concludes as follows: “If the motion to set aside the indictment shall not be made, the defendant shall be precluded from afterwards taking advantage of the foregoing objections.”
State v. Perra, 125 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 1963). “23, for the most part have reference to the defects in the grand jury proceedings leading up to the indictment, and would not be applicable to an information such as is here involved. Under § 630.”
Minn. Stat. § 630.18(1): 1 case
State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “Minn.Stat. § 630.18 (2002); Minn. R.Crim.”
Minn. Stat. § 630.18(3): 1 case
State v. Connelly, 82 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 1957). “rance? (2) Was the testimony of the two accomplices sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction of the defendants? (3) Was it error to admit testimony of certain alleged unrelated and independent acts of the defendants? (4) Were defendants deprived of a fair trial by…”
Minn. Stat. § 630.18(4): 1 case
State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “Minn.Stat. § 630.18 (2002); Minn. R.Crim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.