Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heath, 685 N.W.2d 48.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
6 “A factual determination is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the record.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When constitutional issues involving due process are raised, this court reviews the [district] court’s legal conclusions de novo.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A factual determination is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the record.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 489 (a defendant must show that they are “unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means”); - 56 (Minn. App. 2004) (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When constitutional issues involving due process are raised, this court reviews the 4 [district] court’s legal conclusions de novo.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In determining whether offenses were committed as a part of a single behavioral incident, the court considers “whether the offenses (1) arose from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct; (2) occurred at substantially the same time and place; and (3) manifested an indivisible state of mind.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1; -63 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Hanson, d at 623; (stating that “ten or mo re grams of methamphetamine” constitutes “a substantial amount that is often greater than for personal use”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When constitutional issues involving due process are raised, this court reviews the [district] court’s legal conclusions de novo.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
a ‘situational offense ’ unlikely to reoccur.” See State v. Heath , (establishing that if stated reasons for sentencing departure are inadequate, the appellate “court must examine the record to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to affirm the district court’s departure”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A factual determination is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the record.” State v. Heath , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 48, 55 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(re asoning that a factual finding by the district court is only clearly erroneous when unsupported by the record evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When constitutional issues involving due process are raised, this court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that federal conspiracy conviction did not bar state’s prosecution on seven counts of transferring stolen property); (in the context of methamphetamine, holding that “conspiracy to manufacture” and “possession with intent to sell” were not part of the same behavioral incident).
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
333 ; (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 56 -57 n. *, 109 S.Ct.
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
1(1) (providing that sale of ten grams or more of methamphetamine constitutes first-degree controlled substance crime) (2008); (concluding that evidence that defendant possessed at least 13 grams of methamphetamine sufficiently supported conviction of possession with intent to sell), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To argue that respondent must show that the blood sample was destroyed in bad faith, (requiring courts to consider “whether the destruction [of the evidence] was intentional and whether the exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence was apparent and material”) (quotations omitted) -56 (Minn.App.2004) (requiring defendants, when exculpatory value of evidence is not apparent, to “show bad faith on the part of the state to establish a due-process violation”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
56-57 (Minn.App.2004), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Carr 692 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Carr 692 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
1 (2002); review denied (Minn. Nov.