Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892.

117 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.L.B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
brings the charge against the [alleged offender] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Koenig , n.2 (Minn. 2003) (citing State v. Florence , ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
to require the defendant to stand trial.” see Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
5 A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied when “the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But in October 2022, the task force reactivated the CI to work for 2 When a defendant moves to dismiss, the district court “will make the critical determination based on all the information contained in the files and records as of [the omnibus hearing], including reliable hearsay in whole or in part.” (quotation omitted).
Chad Loran Siegel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When making this determination, “[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ayyoob Dawood Abdus-Salam Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ayyoob Dawood Abdus-Salam Minn. 2024
“[U]nder these circumstances, a district court should deny a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause if it is ‘satisfied that the facts appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a [judgment] of acquittal if proved at trial.’ ” –93 (Minn. 2022) ().
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-901 (Minn. 1976); Minn. R. Crim P. 11.04, subd.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 392-93 (alteration in original) ( 5 (Minn. 1976)).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ery expedition.” But the two main collateral functions of pretrial hearings, such as suppression hearings, are (1) for “the defendant to engage in a form of discovery,” and (2) perpetuation of testimony on both sides—the defendant has an opportunity to confront the state’s witnesses against them, and the prosecution gets to “assess the credibility of [its own] witnesses.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3 When a defendant moves to dismiss, the district court “will make the critical determination based on all the information contained in the files and records as of [the omnibus hearing], including reliable hearsay in whole or in part.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
At this stage, “[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
Mary Kate Nguyen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that if the state elects to rely on the verified charging document as proof of probable cause , the defendant produces exonerating witness testimony, and the state presents no rebuttal testimony, a motion to dismiss for lack of probabl e cause “will be granted unless there is substantial
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(c), for the proposition that a “court may find probable cause based on the complaint or the entire record, including reliable hearsay.” See, e.g. , State v. Florence , (permitting district court to rely on police report in probable-cause challenge).
A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
brings the charge agains t the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” ().
Oji Konata Markham, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Florence , 306 Minn. 442 , 446, , 896 (1976) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 447 n.4, 453-54, -97 n.4, 900 (1976).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 456, see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Next, appellant entered a “Lothenbach plea” to fifth-degree possession 1 In accordance with State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 457, the state’s probable-cause packet contained the complaint, police reports, and a number of related documents, which the district court could rely on in making a finding of probable cause.
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Probable cause for a grand jury indictment depends on “whether the evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” (quoting State v. 4 Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446, ).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, ” n.2 (Minn. 2003).
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Ethan Dean v. City of Winona 868 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Had we not decided the substantive issue in Rud immediately, the court of appeals’ holding, which was erroneous in light of our decision in State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442 , could have resulted in the broad use of probable cause hearings as ‘“a substitute for disclosure and discovery.’ ” Rud, d at 578 (quoting Florence, 306 Minn. at 450 , d at 898 ).
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
do not justify a trial.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446-47 , (emphasis added).
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , (quotation omitted).
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 446 , (quotation omitted).
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
It has been said that the test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration, in any aspect for the judicial mind to act upon, brings the charge against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 445-46 , (emphasis omitted) (quoting State ex rel.
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 445-46 , (emphasis omitted) (quoting State ex rel.