Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 811 N.W.2d 136.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 required.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 136, 148 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “[i]n Minnesota, delays beyond 60 days from the date of demand raise a presumption that a violation has occurred.” Windish, d at 315-16; (“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Brian Ford Dowell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
11 447 U.S. at 235-59, 100 S. Ct. at 2127-30; review denied (Minn. March 28, 2012); (finding no prosecutorial misconduct by using defendant’s pre-Miranda silence in closing argument when the purpose was “to question the reasonableness and credibility of his testimony, not
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, “delays beyond 60 days from the date of demand raise a presumption that a violation has occurred.” Windish, d at 315 -16; (“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State 11 v. Johnson, 148 (Minn. App. 2012) (holding that defendant’s silence following the victim’s direct question , “Why did you beat me?
Michelle Lee Koester, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Johnson , , 148 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that this court reviews admission of evidence under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts consider “the impact on both the victim of the crime as well as the trauma to the eyewitnesses who would be compelled to testify at multiple trials.” State v. Johnson , ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
B. Impact on the victim Appellate courts consider “the impact on both the victim of the crime as well as the trauma to the eyewitnesses who would be compelled to testify at multiple trials.” (d 351, 371 (Minn. 2005)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. Length of delay “Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy - trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See e.g., State v. Johnson , -45 (Minn. App. 2012) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. Length of the delay “Under Minnesota law, a delay of more th an 60 days from the date of the speedy- trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, , 146 n.2 (Minn. App. 2012) (addressing only the Fifth Amendment when appellant mentioned article I, section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution in his brief, but raised only Fifth-Amendment arguments), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kauser Mohamoud Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
[a] victim of being required to testify in separate trials.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.”); n.2 (Minn. App. 2012) (addressing only Fifth Amendment when appellant mentioned article I, section 7, of Minnesota Constitution in his brief but based arguments only on Fifth Amendment), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Mar.