Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157.

239 citing documents.

State v. Blacksten 489 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
Normally, this court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the trial court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
State v. Ault 478 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ault 478 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State, City of St. Paul v. Lynch 477 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State, City of St. Paul v. Lynch 477 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Scott 473 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Scott 473 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Poupard 471 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Alt 469 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Alt 469 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Othoudt 469 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Othoudt 469 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of R.A.V. 464 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1991
In Re the Welfare of R.A.V. 464 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1991
In order to prevail, the City must demonstrate “clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().
State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the prosecution’s pretrial appeal must establish not only that the court’s ruling was incorrect but that the ruling will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ronnebaum 449 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
State v. Ronnebaum 449 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
of showing that the suppression of the evidence, if sustained, will have a “critical impact” on the outcome of the prosecution.
State v. Bigelow 447 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Bigelow 447 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lang 432 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Lang 432 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS I. When the state appeals from a pretrial order it must demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that (1) “the trial court has erred in its judgment” and (2) “unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Storvick 423 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Storvick 423 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Norberg 423 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Norberg 423 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Quinn 422 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Quinn 422 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(recognizing state’s right to appeal from pretrial order).
State v. Lyons 423 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Lyons 423 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
More important, while the prosecution has a right to appeal suppression orders under Rule 28.04, R.Crim.P., which requires that the prosecution show on appeal that the trial court “clearly and unequivocally erred, and that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” The prosecutor concedes that he can sill struggle forward with the present case even in the presence of the
State v. Anderson 415 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 415 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schweich 414 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schweich 414 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987