- What:dismiss for fairness.
- Narrow:exceptional cases.
- Discretionary:court's judgment.
- Rare:but real.
A motion to dismiss in the interests of justice asks the court to end a prosecution not because of a specific legal defect, but because, considering everything, allowing it to continue would be fundamentally unfair or would not serve justice. It is a narrow and rarely granted remedy — courts are cautious about substituting their judgment for the prosecutor's charging decision — but in the right circumstances it is a real avenue. It's one of the less common pretrial motions, and it's used carefully.
What It Is
Most motions to dismiss point to a concrete problem — no probable cause, no jurisdiction, a defective charge, an expired statute of limitations. A motion to dismiss in the interests of justice is different: it asks the court to exercise its discretion to dismiss because continuing the prosecution would be unjust under all the circumstances, even if no single technical defect compels dismissal.
Why It's Narrow
Courts approach this power cautiously for an important reason: the decision to charge is generally the prosecutor's, and judges are reluctant to override it without strong justification. So this is not a routine motion, and it is not a substitute for the ordinary defenses. It is reserved for unusual situations where the equities are compelling and dismissal genuinely serves the interests of justice.
Where It Can Come Up
It tends to arise in unusual postures — for example, where extraordinary circumstances make continued prosecution fundamentally unfair, where there has been serious misconduct, or in specific statutory contexts. Notably, Minnesota's competency framework expressly allows a defendant's counsel to move to dismiss proceedings in the interests of justice at any stage when competency is at issue — one concrete place this motion has a defined role.
How It's Used
Because it depends entirely on the equities of the specific case, this motion is built around a careful, honest presentation of the circumstances that make dismissal the just result. It is most persuasive when paired with the full picture — the defendant's situation, the nature of the case, and why continuing would not serve the purposes of the criminal law. It is not a magic word; it's an argument that has to earn the court's discretion.
Updated May 18, 2026 · Law verified as of June 8, 2026. This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a motion to dismiss in the interests of justice?
It's a request asking the court to use its discretion to dismiss a charge because, under all the circumstances, continuing the prosecution would be fundamentally unfair or would not serve justice — even without a specific technical defect.
Is it commonly granted?
No. It's a narrow, rarely granted remedy. Courts are cautious about overriding the prosecutor's charging decision, so it's reserved for unusual cases with compelling equities.
When does it come up?
In unusual situations where continued prosecution would be fundamentally unfair, and in specific statutory contexts — for example, Minnesota's competency framework expressly allows a motion to dismiss in the interests of justice when competency is at issue.
How is it different from a probable-cause dismissal?
A probable-cause dismissal points to insufficient evidence to justify trial. An interests-of-justice dismissal rests on the overall fairness and equities of continuing the case, an exercise of judicial discretion rather than a specific legal defect.
Related guides
Motion to Dismiss: Jurisdiction, Defects, and the Statute of Limitations
Beyond probable cause, charges can be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, a defective complaint, or expiration of the statute of limitations. Here's h...
Read the guideThe Accident Defense in Minnesota Criminal Cases
How accident works as a Minnesota criminal defense — when a genuine accident negates criminal intent, how it differs from self-defense, and why it fai...
Read the guideThe Alibi Defense in Minnesota: Proving You Weren't There
How the alibi defense works in Minnesota — the pretrial notice rule, who carries the burden of proof, corroboration, and why "I wasn't there" is reall...
Read the guideThe information on this article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.