Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Syrovatka v. State, 278 N.W.2d 558.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 90 (-62 (Minn. 1979)).
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quotation omitted) (-62 (Minn. 1979)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The privilege, however, must give way if “there is a reasonable probability that the informant’s testimony [is] necessary to a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The defendant must explain precisely what testimony he thinks the informant will give and how this testimony will be relevant to a material issue of guilt or innocence.”
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The defendant must explain precisely what testimony he thinks the informant will give and how this testimony will be relevant to a material issue of guilt or innocence.”
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
tors for district courts to consider in determining whether to order disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity: (1) “[wjhether the informant was a material witness”; (2) “[wjhether [the] informer’s testimony will be material to the issue of guilt”; (3) “[wjhether testimony of officers is suspect”; and (4) “[wjhether the informant’s testimony might disclose entrapment.” , 561—62 (Minn.1979) (citing 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence § 510(06)).
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
(Minn.1996) (whether newspaper retained unpublished photographs relevant to a criminal defense); (whether Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms records contained impeachment evidence); -10 (Minn.1987) (whether police department’s internal affairs files were proper for civil discovery); (whether confidential informant's testimony was necessary for a fair trial).
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
When the informant is an eyewitness to the crime, an in camera hearing is appropriate to determine whether “there is a reasonable probability that the informer’s testimony is necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.” 3 Wein-stein & Berger, supra, § 510.07(5), at 510-17
Rahr Malting Co. v. County of Scott 632 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2001
Rahr Malting Co. v. County of Scott 632 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2001
should be compelled to disclose unpublished information regarding a crime); (remanding for in camera review of requested discovery in order to balance competing interests at stake); (requiring that court review welfare department records in camera in child sex abuse case); (remanding for in camera hearing to determine if confidential informant’s testimony was necessary for a fair trial).
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Solheim 477 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Solheim 477 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
-562 (Minn.1979); State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 13-14
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Rothstein 422 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Rothstein 422 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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. Paradee 403 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1987
State v. Paradee 403 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1987
(remanding for in camera examination of information to determine if defendant’s right of confrontation should prevail over privilege relating to identity of informer).
State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch 392 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch 392 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
at 549 ; (remanding for in camera review)
State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
*385 based on the landmark case Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct.
State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kutchara 350 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1984
State v. Kutchara 350 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1984
See, (remanding for in camera examination of informant to determine if defendant’s right of confrontation should prevail over privilege relating to identity of informer).
State v. Ford 322 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1982
State v. Ford 322 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1982
(a) contains a detailed summary and analysis of the *614 governmental privilege relating to the identity of informants in the context of a criminal trial.
State v. Galde 306 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1981
State v. Galde 306 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1981
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980