Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hamilton, 268 N.W.2d 56.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Mikell, d at 251; (affirming a district court’s finding of good cause where the police department had difficulty “locating crucial witnesses”).
A24-1886 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that “the [six]-month period begins with receipt of the request and certificate”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Objections to possibly inadmissible evidence must be made at the time such evidence is introduced.”
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court has stated that “the right to a speedy trial is not suspended by confinement as punishment for a different offense.” State v. Borough, 287 Minn. 482, 483, (“The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Federal and state constitutions and is not suspended by 7 imprisonment on other charges.” (footnote omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Where an objection is not made, hearsay evidence will be admitted” if it “has probative force.”
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Resendiz v. State 832 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
2 See State v. *866 Hamilton, (characterizing a prisoner’s argument that the six-month period began when the prison authority mailed his UMDDA request as “plainly contrary to the statutory provision that the 6-month period begins with receipt of the request and certifícate”).
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Miller 525 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Miller 525 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
3 (state’s six month time limit starts to run upon receipt by the court and prosecuting attorney of inmate’s UMDDA request); (six month period begins to run from date UMDDA request is received — not from date defendant is informed of the indictment).
State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(hearsay issue waived by failure to object).
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984