Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lindsey, 284 N.W.2d 368.

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Edwin Albert Dlugopolski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[p]reclusion 5 of evidence is a severe sanction which should not be lightly invoked.”
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(listing factors district courts should take into account when determining whether to preclude evidence based on a discovery violation).
In re the Marriage of: Anthony Linus Orner v. Shauna Orner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Anthony Linus Orner v. Shauna Orner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In exercising its discretion when ruling on a motion for a mistrial based upon a discovery violation, a district court should take into account: “(1) the reason why disclosure was not made; (2) the extent of prejudice to the opposing party; (3) the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance; and (4) any other relevant factors.”
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
(noting that “[t]he values sought to be achieved through reciprocal discovery will be attained only if the rules are properly observed, and to this end the trial courts must have the ability to make those obligations meaningful.”).
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating imposition of sanctions for discovery violations is within district court’s discretion because it is in best position to determine whether any harm resulted from violation).
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
Woodruff v. State 608 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2000
Woodruff v. State 608 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2000
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
Discovery rules are “based on the proposition that the ends of justice will best be served by a system of liberal discovery which gives both parties the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their eases and thereby reduces the possibility of surprise at trial” and are “designed to enhance the search for truth.” (citing Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 473 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
ive remark “to do what I got to do.” In State v. Lindsey we set forth the following guidelines for the trial court to consider when ruling on a motion for a mistrial based upon a discovery violation: “(1) the reason why disclosure was not made; (2) the extent of prejudice to the opposing party; (3) the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance; and (4) any other relevant factors.”
State v. Adams 555 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Adams 555 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
reh’g denied (Minn., Sept.
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
Nevertheless, “[t]he imposition of sanctions for violations of discovery rules and orders is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Ramos 492 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Ramos 492 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
“The imposition of sanctions for violations of discovery rules and orders is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted).
State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
The trial court, precluded Rasin-ski’s testimony as a sanction for violating discovery rules.
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988