Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wolf, 605 N.W.2d 381.

43 citing documents.

Ken Martin v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, The Legal Marijuana Now Party, ... 6 N.W.3d 443 Minn. 2024
Ken Martin v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, The Legal Marijuana Now Party, ... 6 N.W.3d 443 Minn. 2024
(“We have held that a party fails to preserve for appeal a ruling excluding evidence when that party fails to make an offer of proof showing the nature of the evidence excluded.”); (“We have also declined to address issues that were raised in a brief t
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The state, contends that because Prince did not make an offer of proof, this court cannot review the district court’s decision.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The party challenging a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.” see also Fitch, d at 373 (“The party challenging the constitutional validity of a statute bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“However, the accused must comply with the established rules of evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (“The party challenging a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some provision of the Minnesota Constitution.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, expert testimony is admissible if (1) it assists the trier of fact; (2) it has a reasonable basis; (3) it is relevant; and (4) its probative value outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” aff’d
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(statute); (warrantless search).
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that a statute was constitutional and properly used despite the fact that it clearly conflicted with a then-existing rule of procedure); (same).
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
(affording comity to legislature’s clearly expressed intent in statute on a procedural matter despite the fact that it conflicted with a rule of civil procedure).
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
Under the due process clauses, “[a] criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
State v. Grossman 636 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
But the defendant must “comply with the established rules of evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.”
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
“We have held that a party fails to preserve for appeal a ruling excluding evidence when that party fails to make an offer of proof showing the nature of the evidence excluded.”
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Recently, our supreme court was faced with a conflict between a state statute and a rule of criminal procedure, both involving venue for a criminal trial.