Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McLeod, 705 N.W.2d 776.

78 citing documents.

State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When the state appeals a pretrial order, we will only reverse if the state clearly and unequivocally shows “(1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a ‘critical impact’ on its ability to prosecute the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Gehloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Gehloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(describing the circumstances in which critical impact may occur).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devin Keith Barner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devin Keith Barner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION The pretrial ruling had a critical impact “When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a ‘critical impact’ on its ability to prosecute the case.” ( ); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A Spreigl act must be a “‘bad’ act.” 5 -88 (Minn. 2005); -17 (Minn. 2004) (holding that evidence that defendant collected information on women was not Spreigl evidence because there is nothing inherently wrong with collecting information on women).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
The State has the burden of showing “clearly and unequivocally (1) that the district court’s ruling was erroneous and (2) that the ruling will have a ‘critical impact’ on the State’s ability to prosecute the case.” ().
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The critical-impact test “is intended to be a demanding standard” and requires the state to show that the ruling “ ‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
The critical impact requirement has evolved into a “threshold issue,” so that “ ⅛ the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.’ ” (); (noting the change to the Webber decision’s order of analysis to require critical impact to be determined before deciding whether the trial court erred).
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. NMN Williams 762 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
This threshold condition is intended to be a demanding standard and requires the State to show that the ruling “ ‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’ ” ().
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008