Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Osorio, 891 N.W.2d 620.

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Buenfil Minn. Ct. App. 2026
sserting that, if mail is “properly addressed and sent with postage prepaid,” there is a “presumption [of receipt], in the absence of proof to the contrary,” that the mail was “duly received by the addressee.” (applying this presumption to criminal cases), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Steven Michael Koons Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Olivares Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “must engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process, in which the conduct of both the State and the defendant are weighed.” (quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deondre Demetrius Ramsey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. L. T. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Scott Mathew Schillak Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Scott Mathew Schillak Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But the guiding determination in assessing the reason-for-the-delay (second) factor is whether the state or the defendant is more to blame for the delay, and here, the defendant bears the blame.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Robert Voeller Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Decarieon Dupra Scurlock Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Christian Dior Byrd Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. George Kenyata Muumbo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “view critical impact as a threshold issue and will 5 not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lorenzo Dee Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Drew Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Bobby James Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0588 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Charles Kipp Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Fechner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jamaul Wendell Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Critical impact is a threshold issue, and absent such a showing, we must dismiss a state’s pretrial appeal.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Steven Michael Herrick Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Steven Michael Herrick Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Carl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Anthony Sparks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Amber Klevgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Kayli Anne Feekes-Benedict Minn. Ct. App. 2023
decision at the pretrial stage, we will reverse its decision only if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order [had] a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the [district court’s decision] constituted error.” (quotation omitted); d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (explaining that an appellate court views critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing).
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Michael Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Cameron Oneal Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Jamal Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Duke Ogeto Maroko Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Harun Warsame Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Duane Lucas, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a 3 defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
Furthermore, “the prejudice a defendant suffers must be due to the delay.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
Whether the right to a speedy trial is violated “is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Karl Arthur Keene Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Joseph Matusovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Renaldo Valentino Sept Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James David Wren Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Right to a Speedy Trial “Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review .”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Edward Bolster Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).