Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dunson, 770 N.W.2d 546.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-52 (Minn. App. 2009) (explaining that due process requires that a defendant be adequately apprised of the charges against him), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Finally, as to the content requirements of a charging document, the due-process “nature and cause requirement is satisfied if an indictment contains such descriptions of the offense charged as will enable a defendant to make his defense and to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecution of the same crime.” (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 97 (Minn. 1999) (considering state constitutional issues on appeal from “sua sponte” ruling by the district court); 552 (Minn. App. 2009) (considering constitutional issues in state pretrial appeal after the district court, “sua sponte, held that the use of initials to identify the alleged victims in the complaints violated the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and the United States and Minnesota Constitutions”).
A22-1601 A22-1602 A22-1603 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
brings the charge agains t the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” ().
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Dismissal of a complaint based on a question of la w satisfies the critical impact requirement.” State v. Dunson , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1(1); review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Dismissal of a complaint based on a question of law satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although a complaint “is sufficient if the language used spells out all essential elements in a manner which has substantially the same meaning as the statutory definition,” “it is unnecessary to identify each specific element of the crime.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
4 “Dismissal of a complaint based on a question of law satisfies the critical impact requirement.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lawayne Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lawayne Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]t is unnecessary to identify each specific element of the crime.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Due process requires that a criminal defendant “be adequately apprised of the charge made against him in order that he may prepare his defense, as well as to insure against jurisdictional defects.” State v. Pratt, 277 Minn. 363, 366
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
While indiscriminate searches and seizures authorized by general warrants are unlawful, Minnesota courts recognize that a complaint is “to be treated in a commonsense rather than overtechnical manner on review.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 308 , (noting that “the public policy of this state is to free criminal pleading from the pitfalls that resulted from the formalities and technicalities of common-law pleading” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.