Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Inthavong, 402 N.W.2d 799.

52 citing documents.

State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Inthavong , , 801 (Minn. 1987).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
regularity attaches to an indictment, and “it is a rare case where an indictment will be invalidated.”
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Nolting, 312 Minn. 449, 452-53
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
1 “[A] presumption of regularity attaches to the indictment, and it is a rare case where an indictment will be invalidated.”
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
see also Scruggs, d at 717 (“a criminal defendant bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment”).
State v. Bitz 487 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bitz 487 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Russell 481 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Russell 481 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See, (discussing use of grand jury handbook).
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
State v. Richards 464 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Richards 464 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
that is, "where the grand jury instructions are so egregiously misleading or deficient that the fundamental integrity of the indictment process itself is compromised.” Id.
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
3 : “[TJhis is one of those instances where the error is fundamental and the integrity of the grand jury system cannot afford the assumption that the jurors were not misled.” Id.
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988