Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carriere, 290 N.W.2d 618.

38 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Minn. Const. art. I, §§ 6-7; (providing that “the power to decide whom to prosecute and what charge to file resides with the executive branch”); n.3 (Minn. 1980) (explaining that a prosecutor is an executive official).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Minn. Const. art. III, § 1; & n.3 (Minn. 1980) (dicta); -60 (Minn. 1996) (Coyne, J., dissenting).
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
utor] on whether the prosecutor can "demonstrate to the trial court that there is a reasonable likelihood that the state can withstand a motion to dismiss the charge at the close of the state’s case in chief.” We concluded that if the prosecutor can satisfy this condition, the district court "should refuse to accept the tendered guilty plea.” Streiff, d at 834 ( 621 (Minn.1980)).
State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. K.M.M. 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[A grand jury’s] indictment represents the grand jury’s decision that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it.” , 620 n. 3 (Minn.1980); see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. KMM 721 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
620 n. 3 (Minn. 1980); see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Thus, “[a]n indictment represents the grand jury’s decision that there is probable cause to believe that an *151 offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it.” , 620 n. 3 (Minn.1980) (citing Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
It simply stated “the court may accept a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense or to an offense of a lesser degree.” In 1980, which addressed the following certified question from the district court: “Under Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 15.07, can the court accept a plea to an offense of lesser degree over the voiced opposition of the county attorney?” We said: If the second sentence of Rule 15.07 were interpreted a
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
State, City of Minneapolis v. Gilmartin 550 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State, City of Minneapolis v. Gilmartin 550 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1 ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Krotzer 548 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1996
State v. Krotzer 548 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1996
In Re Quinn 517 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1994
In Re Quinn 517 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1994
620 n. 3 (Minn. 1980), the prosecutor is an executive officer or official.
State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Miller 471 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
2(1)(a); , 620 n. 3 *383 (Minn.1980).
State v. Shellito 456 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Shellito 456 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
a trial court certified the question of whether it could accept a plea over the state’s objection.
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
After defendant was convicted, Newman entered a thereby agreeing that the state’s evidence would be sufficient to convict him of second-degree murder if the case went to trial.
State v. Favre 428 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Favre 428 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it would violate the separation of powers provision of Minn. Const, art. 3, § 1 to leave “to the trial court’s complete discretion the decision whether to accept a guilty plea opposed by the prosecutor.”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten 424 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-21 (Minn.1980) (trial court does not have unlimited discretion to accept pleas to a lesser offense over the prosecutor’s opposition); (prose-cutorial approval cannot be a prerequisite to judicial decision not to sentence under mandatory minimum sentencing law).
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court limited the trial court’s power: [I]n order to successfully oppose a defendant’s motion to plead guilty to a lesser included offense or an offense of lesser degree, the prosecutor must demonstrate to the trial court that there is a reasonable likelihood the state can withstand a motion t
State v. McAllister 399 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McAllister 399 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stafford 340 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1983
State v. Stafford 340 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1983
1 The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the state, in opposing the motion, failed to demonstrate, that there is a reasonable likelihood that it could withstand a motion to dismiss the charge at the close of the state’s case in chief.