Cited by

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

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Matthew Dennis Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Peggy Lynn Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Floyd Boder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Isaac Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” 1 In determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, Minnesota courts apply the four-factor balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo.
Clayton Douglas Groves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Aleksandr Viktorovich Lelyukh Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Mark Bradley Zontelli Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 Critical impact “We view critical impact as a threshold i ssue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Anthony Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Warren James Northrup Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Kerry Toussaint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Edward Earl Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that the denial of a speedy tr ial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review); (stating that the standard of review for pretrial release is for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
As to the fourth factor, “[t]hree types of prejudice may result from an unreasonable delay between formal accusation and trial: oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the accused, and the poss ibility that the accused’ s defense will be impaired.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Pedro Ray Tejeda Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Freeland Jami Morrow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Robert Hageman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Abdilahi Muse Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Because critical impact is a threshold issue , appellate courts “ will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If a defendant has been depriv ed of his or her right to a speedy trial, the only possible remedy is dismissal of the case.” State v. Osorio , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christian John Donnelly Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Dale Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Carr Leon Hagerman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court “view[s] critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Kingbird, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Gary Burnette, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Davonne Ramsey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial i s a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” State v. Osorio
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a consti tutional question subject to de novo review.” State v. Osorio
State of Minnesota v. Dean Allen Benter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If a defendant h as been deprived of his or her right to a speedy trial, the only possible remedy is dismissal.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. La’Marr Merrel Wade Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
See State v. Osorio , , 627-28 (Minn. 2017) (setting forth the test for assessing speedy trial claims).
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Duane Skolte Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dameion Deshawn Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6 ; d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. David James Fineday Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Osorio , (quotations omitted).
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Osorio , , 627 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
’” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. at 2192).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
" State v. Osorio , , 626-27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Dale David Lott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Said Yusuf Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial is a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jerad Michael Whitford Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4 The state further satisfies the critical-i mpact test, which requires the prosecuting authority to demonstrate “how the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Osorio , -27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To determine whether a delay violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, courts consider: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.” State v. Osorio , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Franklin Patten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(considering the reason for delay before the defendant demanded a speedy trial).
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state further satisfies the critical impact test, which requires the prosecuting authority to demonstrate “how the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” -27 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Earl Leatherberry Minn. Ct. App. 2017