Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Griffin, 760 N.W.2d 336.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Richard Theodore Knoll v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Morris Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 336, 339 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Randip E. Satoskar Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Cayla Jean Sandven Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “A speedy -trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Toman Davin Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ronald Lee Schlangen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citation omitted); see also State v. DeRosier , (concluding th at a delay caused in part by a rule 20 evaluation did not violate the right to a speedy trial).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And “good cause for delay does not include calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist.” State v. Griffin , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Robert Hageman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“None of the factors alone is dispositive; rather, the factors are related and must be considered toget her with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(noting that calendar congestion does not constitute good cause for delays caused by the state or court absent “exceptional circumstances”).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Burnette, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ne lson’s trial was therefore continued until December 11.1 Nelson notes that court congesti on is not good cause for delay “unless exceptional circumstances exist.” State v. Griffin
Eddie Niles Hubbard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minn esota Constitution.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Glen Dale Acon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “[i]f a defendant’s own actions caused 10 the delay, there is no violation of the right to a speedy trial.” d 336, 340 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Hisham Ismaeil Rawi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “A speedy -trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A speedy-trial ch allenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Said Yusuf Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Inordinate delay may seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty , whether he is free on bail or not, and may disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional que stion subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. James Franklin Patten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[O]vercrowding in the court system is not a valid reason for denying a defendant a speedy trial.”); -20 (Minn. 1989) (describing exigent circumstances as “the death of the trial judge or if the courthouse burned and there was no immediate
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A speedy- trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” d 336, 339 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Liimatta Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Liimatta Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- 40 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting adoption of Barker test in Widell).
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”).
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011