Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89.
- State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
- State v. Greer 662 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 2003
- State v. Greer 662 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 2003
- State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
-
State v. Powers
654 N.W.2d 667
Minn. 2003
This court has found, “that the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
- State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. DeShay
645 N.W.2d 185
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-03 (Minn.1980) (holding that a defendant’s constitutional right to privacy was not violated where one of the parties to the conversation voluntarily consented to the recording of oral or telephone communications).
- State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
-
State v. Yang
644 N.W.2d 808
Minn. 2002
“[Rjulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
- State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
- State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
- State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- City of Golden Valley v. One 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix, Vin 1g2wp521wf309530, Pennsylvania License Plate P520111 616 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
City of Golden Valley v. One 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix, Vin 1g2wp521wf309530, Pennsylvania License Plate P520111
616 N.W.2d 780
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
noting that rulings on admissibility of evidence rest within sound discretion of the trial court ().
- Pajunen v. Monson Trucking, Inc. 612 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
Pajunen v. Monson Trucking, Inc.
612 N.W.2d 173
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
We do know that “the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
- State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
- State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
- State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
-
State v. Tovar
605 N.W.2d 717
Minn. 2000
‘[Rjulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court,’ and therefore we will only overturn a lower court’s evidentiary ruling if that court abused its discretion.” -43 (Minn.1998) (alteration in original) ().
- State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
- State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
- State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
- State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
- State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
- State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
- State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
- State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
- State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Ferguson
581 N.W.2d 824
Minn. 1998
“[Rjulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon cert.
- State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
State v. Martin
567 N.W.2d 62
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(failure to present exculpatory evidence to grand jury requires reversal only if it would have materially affected the proceedings) cert.
- State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
- State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
- State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Duffy 559 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
- State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
- State v. Post 512 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1994
- State v. Johnson 511 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Johnson 511 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
State v. Plummer
511 N.W.2d 36
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-06 (Minn.1980) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
- State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Brown 500 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
- State v. Brown 500 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993