arose: because the grand jury returned a no-bill; because the original indictment had been quashed; or because the court sustained an objection to the original indictment. See Iosue, 220 Minn. at 288-89, 19 N.W.2d at 738. Therefore, as in the no-bill situation, we conclude that the state is allowed to resubmit a ease to the grand jury after the court dismisses the original indictment pursuant to Rule 17.06, subd. 4(3). In the present ease, the succeeding indictment charging the defendant with first-degree murder effectively amended the complaint that replaced the original indictment. Prior to trial, Minn.R.Crim.P. 3.04, subd. 2 authorizes the trial court to freely permit amendments to the complaint so as to charge additional offenses. State v. Bluhm, 460 N.W.2d 22, 24 (Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Doeden, 309 Minn. 544, 546, 245
holding jeopardy attaches when jury is empanelled and sworn holding that although double jeopardy prohibited subsequent prosecution for offenses charged in counts dismissed by a nolle prosequi entered without the consent of the accused after jeopardy has attached it had no application in the context of the same prosecution which continues on other counts holding that minnrcrimp 1705 which provides that the trial court may permit the prosecutor to amend a complaint only if no additional or different offense is charged applies only after jeopardy has attached and under rule 304 subd 2 the court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before jeopardy attaches at trial holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted