Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
identified the factors that should be considered in imposing sanctions for violations of discovery: (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. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the court affirmed a second degree murder conviction.
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sandberg 406 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1987
State v. Sandberg 406 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1987
we stated: The imposition of sanctions for violation of discovery rules and orders is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the trial court.
State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-62 (Minn.1979); , 373 .
State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of M.S.M. 387 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of M.S.M. 387 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
8 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
we recognized that the trial court has discretion in determining whether to impose sanctions for failure to comply with discovery rules.
State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
State v. Stewart 360 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stewart 360 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
*179 this court articulated four factors the trial court should consider in deciding whether to impose sanctions on a prosecutor who violates rules of discovery: 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 con
State v. Berg 326 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1982
State v. Berg 326 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1982
(recognizing that trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to impose sanctions for failure to comply with discovery rules).
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
297 Minn. at 24 , d at 911 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Galde 306 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1981
State v. Galde 306 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1981