Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Corarito, 268 N.W.2d 79.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Mikell, d at 246 () (determining that a six-month delay without any speedy -trial demand is sufficient to trigger the consideration of the other Barker factors).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
(stating a delay of 6 months did not result in “any unfair prejudice”); –36 (Minn. 1986) (holding that unfair prejudice was not evident from a 7-month delay); see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 533–34 (determining that prejudice resulting from a 4-year delay was “mini
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
See State v. Corarito , (holding that a delay of 6 months is presumptively prejudicial).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 513-14 (d 224, 234-36 (Minn. 1986) (seven months); State v. Helenbolt , -06 (Minn. 1983) (14 months); (seven months); (six months)).
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
see also Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652 n.1, 112 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that a six- month delay “is sufficient to trigger further inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that a six-month delay “is sufficient to trigger further inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that no speedy-trial violation occurred where “there was a valid reason for the delay and .
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(concluding that delay of six months is sufficient to trigger further inquiry in the speedy trial analysis).
State v. Friberg 435 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1989
State v. Friberg 435 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1989
(Minn.1983) (fourteen month delay did not violate right to speedy trial where delay was caused by state’s pre-trial appeal and the only serious prejudice was faulty memory of state’s witness); (no denial of right to speedy trial where *514 defendant was responsible for 5 of the 7 month delay and court calendar was overcrowded); (six month delay did not violate right to speedy trial where prosecutor was not trying to hamper the defense).
STATE OF MINN., CITY OF LITTLE CANADA v. Rachie 427 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
STATE OF MINN., CITY OF LITTLE CANADA v. Rachie 427 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Sap 408 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sap 408 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
State v. Larson 369 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Stitzel 351 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Stitzel 351 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Bauer 299 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1980
State v. Bauer 299 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
Thus, where the evidence of other criminal activity was admissible under Rule 404(b) because the state legitimately felt that it needed the evidence in order to meet its burden of proof.
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)