DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Busse, 644 N.W.2d 79.

65 citing documents.

  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Jones 729 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jones 729 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    -89 (Minn.2002), the supreme court stated that a defendant who uses the Lothen-bach procedure may not obtain appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State v. Jones 700 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Jones 700 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    State v. reh’g denied, (Oct.
  • State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    the supreme court held that an appellant may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence after a Lothenbach trial on stipulated facts because the Lothenbach procedure is used to submit a ease to the district court while “preserving pretrial issues for appeal.” Busse, d at 88 (quotation omitted)
  • State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    the state argued for the first time at oral argument that because appellant entered a Lothenbach plea, she waived any claim that the evidence is not sufficient to support her conviction.