Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722.

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Dustan Charles Schmitt Minn. Ct. App. 2026
As the highest court of our state, the supreme court is “independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [our] citizens.” (quoting O’ (alteration in original)).
State of Minnesota v. Ivan Contreras-Sanchez Minn. 2026
(observing that “as the highest court of this state, we are independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [our] citizens” (alternation in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If a defendant objects to the mistrial, “double jeopardy bars a second trial unless a ‘manifest necessity’ required the first trial to be terminated.” ( (Fuller II)).
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
d 722, 726 (Minn. 1985) (applying the standards for double jeopardy following a mistrial as 5 Lerma does not argue that the double jeopardy standard under the Minnesota Constitution differs from the federal constitution.
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Francis Mortensen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ismeldo Isai Nolasco-Salanic Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[I]f a trial is terminated at the defendant’s request, the double jeopardy clause does not bar a second trial unless the mistrial resulted from governmental misconduct intended to provoke the mistrial request.” (Fuller II) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Juan Carlos Tamez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
We are “independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of [Minnesota’s] citizens.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Russell James Fenstermaker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Russell James Fenstermaker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-27 (Minn. 1985) (quotations, citations, and footnote omitted).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
than the United States Constitution,” our courts “ ‘will [not] cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.’ ” -62 (Minn.2004) (-27 (Minn.1985)).
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
than the United States Constitution,” but our courts “ ‘will [not] cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.’” -62 (Minn.2004) (-27 (Minn.1985)).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
First, while noting that “[i]t is axiomatic that a state supreme court may interpret its own state constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution,” the Minnesota Supreme Court has never expressly broadened Minnesota’s double-jeopardy provision to provide greater protection than its federal counterpart.
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
We are “the first line of defense for individual liberties,” and are “ ‘responsible for safeguarding the rights of [our] citizens.’ ” Id.
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 745 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 745 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“It is axiomatic that a state court may interpret its own state constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than does the federal constitution.” see also Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 719 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
165 (1824)); State v. Gwara, 311 Minn. 106, 108-09
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
We have repeatedly stated that we will not “cavalierly construe our state constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.” -27 (Minn.1985); Wiegand, Harris, d at 98
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
State v. Yeboah 691 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Yeboah 691 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
(citing PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Grillo 661 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 656 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2003