specifically permits a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause, but

does not permit a motion to dismiss an indictment upon this ground. The court must also on its initiative under Rule 11.02 ascertain and hear any other issues that can be heard and disposed of before trial and any other matters that would promote a fair and expeditious trial. This would include requests or issues arising respecting discovery (Rule 9), evidentiary issues arising from the Spreigl notice (Rules 7.02, 19.04, subd. 6), or other evidentiary issues, and expressly permits a pretrial dispositional conference if the court considers it necessary. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1. If such resolution is not possible, the conference may be used to determine the nature of the case so that further hearings or trial may be scheduled as appropriate. The use of such dispositional conferences is commendable and highly recommended by the Advisory Committee. To assure that the pretrial dispositional conference portion of the Omnibus Hearing is meaningful, trial courts should insist on timely discovery by the parties before the date of the Omnibus Hearing as required by Rule 9.01, subd. 1. If the prosecutor has given notice under Rule 7.03 or 19.04, subd. 6(3) of intent to seek an aggravated sentence, Rule 11.04 requires the court to have a hearing to determine any pretrial issues that need to be resolved in connection with that request. This could include issues as to the timeliness of the notice under Rule 7.03 or 19.04, subd. 6. The court must determine whether the proposed grounds legally support an aggravated sentence and whether or not the proffered evidence is sufficient to proceed to trial. The rule does not provide a standard for determining insufficiency of the evidence claims and that is left to case law development. If the aggravated sentence claim will be presented to a jury, the court must also decide whether the evidence will be presented in a unitary or a bifurcated trial and the rule provides the standards for making that determination. Even if a unitary trial is ordered for the presentation of evidence, the rule recognizes that presentation of argument on an aggravated sentence during the guilt phase of the proceedings may unduly prejudice a defendant. The rule therefore allows the court to order separate final arguments on the aggravated sentence issue, if necessary, after the jury renders its verdict on the issue of guilt. Under State v. Wenberg, 289 N.W.2d 503, 504-05 (Minn. 1980), if the prosecutor intends to impeach the defendant or any defense witness with evidence of prior convictions, the prosecutor must request a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of such evidence. If possible this issue should be heard at the Omnibus Hearing. See Rules 9.01, subd. 1(5) and 9.02, subd. 1(8) as to the reciprocal duties of the prosecutor and defense counsel to disclose the criminal records of the defendant and any defense witnesses. As to the standards for determining the admissibility of the impeachment evidence, see Minn. R. Evid. 609, State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978) and State v. Brouillette, 286 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1979). By Rule 11.06 the Omnibus Hearing or any part may be continued if necessary to dispose of the issues presented. At any conference portion of an Omnibus Hearing it is permissible under Rule 11.06 to continue the evidence suppression portion of the Omnibus Hearing until the day of trial if the court determines that resolution of the evidentiary issues would not dispose of the case. Such a continuance would be "for good cause related to the case" under Rule 11.06, and under that rule the court could enter an order continuing both the Omnibus Hearing and the court's decision on the evidentiary issues until the day of trial. Other grounds may also support a continuance as long as the court finds that the continuance is justified under the rule. However, the court should not as a general rule or practice bifurcate the Omnibus Hearing or delay the hearing or any part of it until the day of trial when that is not justified by the circumstances of the case. To do so violates the purpose of these rules. See Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.033, regarding the prosecutor's Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 52 MINNESOTA COURT RULES duties under the Victim's Rights Act to make reasonable efforts to provide advance notice of any change in the schedule of court proceedings. This would include the Omnibus Hearing as well as trial or any other hearing.