Cited by

“When the [s]tate appeals a pretrial order, it must 3 show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the district court’s ruling was erroneous and (2) that the ruling will have a ‘critical impact’ on the [s]tate’s ability to prosecute the case.” 3 (Minn. 2009); see Minn. R. Crim.

Although this requirement “is intended to be a demanding standard,” id., the state does not need to show “that conviction is impossible after the pretrial order.” d 677, 683 (Minn. 2009).

(noting that the State has the burden of showing critical impact).

(noting that the State has the burden of showing critical impact).

“The critical impact requirement has evolved into a threshold issue, so that in the absence of critical impact [appellate courts] will not review a pretrial order.” (quotations omitted).

We granted review solely on the issue of the evidence sought under Rule 9.01, and therefore the suppression issue is not before us. 5 we considered what constitutes an adequate showing under Rule 9.01, subd.

(explaining that, in the absence of critical impact, we will not review the State’s challenge to a pretrial order).

In a state pretrial appeal, the state “must show 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.” ().

Rules are read as a whole, and each section is interpreted “in light of the surrounding sections.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Am.

And the district court, after giving the state a five-day stay, dismissed the charges against F eekes-Benedict, cementing the critical impact as it “destroy[ed] the state’s case.” Id.; (explaining that the dismissal of charges has a critical impact on the prosecution’s case).

In order to prevail on a pretrial appeal, the prosecution “must show 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. Underdahl , ().

(Underdahl II), for the proposition that the DMT source code is relevant to the validity and reliability of his breath-test results .

See State v. Underdahl , (“[A]n order that dismisses DWI charges, ev en when other charges remain, will have a critical impact on the prosecution’s case.”); see also Serbus, d at 87 (stating that “[b]ecause the district court dismissed the charge, critical impact is met”).

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the district court erred by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”

“When the State appeals a pre trial order, it must show 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. Underdahl , see Minn. R. Crim.

(affirming order that required state to produce Intoxylizer source code).

“But section 634.16’s presumption of reliability may be challenged in a proceeding under section 169A.53, subdivision 3(b)(10), which specifically permits a driver to challenge the reliability and accuracy of his or her test results.” Id.; n.4 (Minn. 2009).

Critical impact “is intended to be a demanding standard, but with some flexibility.” d 677, 683 (Minn. 2009) (quotations omitted) .

Safety, n.4 (Minn. 2009).

State v. Underdahl , , 684 (Minn. 2009) ; State v. Rambahal , , 90 (Minn. 2008).

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 disc

State v. Underdahl , , 681 (Minn. 2009) ; see Minn. R. Crim.

State v. Underdahl , , 681 (Minn. 2009).

To prevail, the state must show that (1) the district court “clearly and unequivocally” erred and (2) the error “will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.

“[T]his presumption [may] be challenged by drivers charged with DWI-related offenses.” n.4 (Minn. 2009).

“The critical impact requirement has evolved into a threshold issue, so that in the absence of critical impact [appellate courts] will not review a pretrial order.” State v. Underdahl , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Underdahl , (holding that the critical-impact requirement was satisfied when the pretrial orders suppressed the breath test and required dismissal of certain charges); (holding that “[d]ismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical impact requirement”), re