More Categories

Rule 15.04 – Plea Discussions and Agreements

May 13, 2021 | Criminal Procedure, Minnesota

Subd. 1. Propriety of Plea Discussions and Agreements. The prosecutor must engage in plea discussions and reach a plea agreement with the defendant only through defense counsel unless the defendant is pro se.

Subd. 2. Relationship Between Defense Counsel and Defendant. Defense counsel must enter into a plea agreement only with the consent of the defendant and must ensure that the decision to enter a plea of guilty is made by the defendant.

Subd. 3. Responsibilities of the District Court Judge.

(1) A district court judge must not participate in plea negotiations. At any time, the judge may inquire into the status of settlement negotiations, but the judge must not provide comments about the parties’ competing settlement offers or propose a plea agreement not presented by the parties. Before the entry of a guilty plea, and based upon the parties’ joint request, the judge may disclose general sentencing practices. The substance of the judge’s disclosures must be reflected in writing or orally on the record.
(2) When a plea is entered and the defendant questioned, the district court judge must reject or accept the plea of guilty on the terms of the plea agreement. The court may postpone its acceptance or rejection until it has received the results of a pre-sentence investigation. If the court rejects the plea agreement, it must advise the parties in open court and then call upon the defendant to either affirm or withdraw the plea.
(3) The judge may accept a plea agreement of the parties when the interest of justice would be served. Among the considerations appropriate in determining whether acceptance should be given are that:

(a) defendant by pleading guilty has aided in ensuring the prompt and certain application of correctional measures;
(b) defendant has acknowledged guilt and shown a willingness to assume responsibility for the criminal conduct;
(c) concessions will make possible the application of alternative correctional measures, which are better adapted to achieving rehabilitative, protective, deterrent or other purposes of correctional treatment, or will prevent undue harm to the defendant;
(d) defendant has made trial unnecessary when good reasons exist for not having a trial;
(e) defendant has given or offered cooperation, which has resulted or may result in the successful prosecution of other offenders engaged in serious criminal conduct;
(f) defendant by pleading has aided in avoiding delay in the disposition of other cases and has contributed to the efficient administration of criminal justice.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.04

Amended May 10, 2019, effective July 1, 2019.