Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rambahal, 751 N.W.2d 84.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Fredy Saavedra Olivar Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To satisfy the critical- impact requirement, the state must show that the district court’s ruling “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Damieon Artez Marshall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[I]n any pretrial appeal by the [s]tate, the state must clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
inton challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to compel disclosure of information about the CRI, arguing that his “right to prepare his defense outweighed the state’s privilege to withhold information regarding the informant.” Appellate courts “review a district court order regarding disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State v. Dexter , (citing State v. Rambahal , ).
State of Minnesota v. Carr Leon Hagerman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Rambahal , ().
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lashaun Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Underdahl , , 684 (Minn. 2009) ; State v. Rambahal , , 90 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Haney Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Underdahl , (“A district court judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders, and normally an order will not be overturned without clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotati on omitted)); (“[Appellate courts] review a district court order regarding disclosure of a confidential informant’s identi ty for an abuse of discretion.”).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Chevelle Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review a district court order regarding disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review a district court order regarding disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
14 D. Disclosure of the Informant’s Identity “We review a district court order regarding disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
be helpful to his defense was based on “mere speculation” and “does not provide this Court with facts that would establish that the in[]camera review would be helpful.” Minnesota law recognizes a privilege to withhold the identity of a CRI because of the state’s “‘legitimate interest in protecting the identity of persons who provide information to law enforcement.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
To prevail in a pretrial appeal, the State “ ‘must clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.’ ” (quoting Barrett, d at 787 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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