Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gerdes v. State, 319 N.W.2d 710.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Chad William Buckley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Buckley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-13 (Minn. 1982) (reasoning traffic-control devices are acquired for personal use and not likely to be disposed of quickly); see also Jannetta, d at 194 (determining that the observation of photographs depicting child pornography and the execution of a warrant two-years later did not render the informa
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2 (1980), “the operability of the weapon at the time of possession is immaterial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of search warrant); DeWald, d at 746 –48 (concluding, in murder case, that three -week- old information contained in affidavit supporting search warrant was not stale); –74 (Minn. 1984) (concluding that probable cause was not stale whe n search warrant stated that “within the past week” a controlled buy from defendant occurred); –13 (Minn. 1982) (concluding 11 that probable cause was not stale after gap of four weeks between observation of stolen traffic signs and search); Yaritz, d at 17 (concl
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 Under this reasoning, Minnesota courts have, for example, declined to invalidate searches based on staleness in various circumstances: a –13 (Minn. 1982); a gap of two years between the observation of photographs, books, and magazines depicting child pornography and the home search did not render the observation stale in Jannetta, d at 194; a gap of six days between the information that the defendant had marijuana in his home and the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state relies on Ostrem, which held that, “i n order to prejudice the substantial rights of th e defendant, it must be shown that the amendment either added or charged a different offense.” d at 923 ().
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; (approving amendment of the complaint during trial when it changed only the date of possession of a firearm, which did not change any essential element of the offense).
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
17.05 is in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
P. 17.05; (stating that “the matter of allowing amendments to complaints under Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
“[I]n order to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant, it must be shown that the amendment either added or charged a different offense.”
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(date of alleged offense is not ordinarily essential element; therefore amendment to date does not usually constitute “different offense”); (amendment that places extra burden on defendant, even though alleging same behavior, constitutes “d
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
17.05 is in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
State v. Ostrem 520 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“[I]n order to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant, it must be shown that the amendment either added or charged a different offense.”
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Favre 428 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Favre 428 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Manley 353 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Manley 353 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Although no definition of different offense is found in Minnesota law, provides insight.
Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984
Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984