Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of L.E.P., 594 N.W.2d 163.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. V. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
( “In the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(declining to address alternative grounds when concluding evidence was admissible on one ground).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 suppressing evidence, th e state must “clearly and unequi vocally demonstrate[] that the suppression ruling will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The state can satisfy the critical-i mpact standard if “t he suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a succ essful prosecution.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Critical impact is met when the suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
A16-1804 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Additional relevant circumstances include “spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of sim ilar age, and lack of motive to fabricate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3, which is “a statutory scheme for the evaluation of the admissibility of statements made by children regarding sexual abuse.” d 163, 169 (Minn. 1999).
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
whether the person talking with the child had a preconceived idea of what the child would say[,] and the lack of leading or suggestive questions.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
Finally, we consider the State’s evidence as a whole when determining if the exclusion of evidence will reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution, and generally, “unique” evidence is “more likely to meet the critical impact test.”
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
Critical impact is a threshold issue and “[i]n the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.” (explaining that although we had previously stated that we decide the evidentiary issue first, making critical impact a threshold issue).
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Critical impact is met when the suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Critical impact is met when the suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (citation omitted).
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
“Critical impact is met when the suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” ().
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999