Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 313 N.W.2d 429.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 429, 430 (Minn. 1981) (affirming grant of motion to amend made “shortly before the jury was selected” where amendment “did not charge any additional or different offense”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Martinez-Mendoza
804 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 2011
Further, once jeopardy attaches, the State may no longer amend its complaint to charge “a different or additional offense.”
- State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. Caswell
551 N.W.2d 252
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
P. 17.05 (allowing amendments under these conditions any time before verdict); (interpreting this rule to apply only after trial has begun); (stating additional or different offenses may not be added once jeopardy has attached); (indicating courts have discretion to allow amendments according to the standards set forth in rule 17.05).
- State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Mickelson
378 N.W.2d 17
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court upheld the trial court’s approval of a motion to amend under Rule 3.04, subd.
- State v. Manley 353 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Manley 353 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
- State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
- State v. Berg 326 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Berg
326 N.W.2d 14
Minn. 1982
Having concluded that there was no prejudicial error, we hasten to add that, “[W]e will not tolerate intentional abuses of the discovery process by the prosecutor and * * * we will not hesitate to reverse on this ground if the facts warrant it.” (
- State v. Holmes 325 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Holmes
325 N.W.2d 33
Minn. 1982
“We emphasize, however, that we will not tolerate intentional abuses of the discovery process by the prosecutor and that we will not hesitate to reverse on this ground if the facts warrant it.” State v.