Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch, 884 N.W.2d 367.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rajuan Marquice Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Fitch , d 367, 373 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Gale Lanham Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Gale Lanham Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“But the ultimate question in a severance claim .
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A25-0410 State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute (A25-0407) (A25-0408, A25-0410), Exxon … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A25-0410 State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison v. American Petroleum Institute (A25-0407) (A25-0408, A25-0410), Exxon … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
When reviewing a constitutional challenge to a statute, we presume that the statute is constitutional, and we exercise our power to declare statutes unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jayshawn Jarmell Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jayshawn Jarmell Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Douglas Paulson, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Douglas Paulson, Appellant Minn. 2025
.” (holding, among other things, that the defendant waived his vicinage right when he moved to change venue before trial).
State of Minnesota v. Karl Evald Auleciems Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision regarding whether to sever charges or offenses de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lorenzo Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. John Tyrus Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Tyrus Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state argues that venue is not an element of every criminal offense, claiming convictions with insufficient venue evidence should not be reversed because the 4 constitution “guarantees the defendant only a jury from a particular county or district.” (reviewing a constitutional challenge to appellant’s jury trial).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah John Dahl Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Article I, Section 6, is merely an affirmation of the common -law right to a jury from the vicinage where the crime was committed.” (footnote omitted) ).
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[J]oinder is not prejudicial if evidence of each offense would have been admissible Spreigl evidence in the trial of the other.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Simply put: “[a]rticle I, [s]ection 6, does not define or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of this state over criminal offenses.” 4 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. J. Adam Russell Spotts Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that “[a] district court must sever offenses or charges prior to trial when the offenses or charges are not related or the court determines severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each off ense or charge” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Santiago Guadalupe Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Anthony Janish Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision r egarding whether to sever charges or offenses de novo.”).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Wilford Domier Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antwan Mister Carpenter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(addressing proper standard of review and holding “that de novo review is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court ’s denial of a motion for severance of offens es under Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And when we review constitutional challenges to statutes, we presume that the statutes are constitutional and exercise our power to declare statutes unconstitutional “with extreme -caution and only when ¡absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).
Robert Atkinson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, and Scott County Social/Human Services Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We note that “Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional.”