Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (holding that the firing of two shots in a public bar at relatively close range, including one shot directly to the victim’s head when the victim was on the ground, “put a number of people at risk and in fear” and justified an upward departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 343; see Sanchez-Diaz, 17 d at 835 (stating that prudent police investigators should comply with the statutory requirements for language services); (stating that “[i]n the future, prudent police investigators .
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that the multiple-victim rule does not violate the separation of powers, and does not violate the bar on double jeopardy
Tyler Douglas Flantz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(concluding that the Blockburger rule4 does not apply “if the greater offense is against one victim and the included offense is committed against a different victim,” and explaining that the “exception is set out in both section 609.04 and section 609.035”); s ee also, e.g. State v. Hodges , 386
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But he has the “burden of proving on appeal that the interpretation was inadequate.” State v. Montalvo , see also State v. Mitjans , (stating that in addressing a claim that errors in translation denied a defendant a fair tria l, this court considers whethe r the translation was “on the whole adequate and accurate”).
State v. Lopez-Ramos 929 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
State v. Lopez-Ramos 929 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
State v. Mitjans , , 829 (Minn. 1987) ; 12 cf. Code of Prof'l Responsibility for Interpreters in the Minn. State Court Sys.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
835 (Minn. 2004) (stating that violation of statutory right to interpreter “does not require the application of the exclusionary rule ”); see also State v. Mitjans , -75 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
re all permissible aggravating factors which allow a sentencing court to legally impose an upward departure.1 (recognizing particular cruelty as a legally valid aggravating factors); Dominguez, d at 567 (stating that “multiple victims is a legitimate aggravating factor sufficient to support an upward departure”); (stating that a defendant’s conduct is more serious than the typical crime and warrants an upward departure if the conduct puts a large number of people at risk or in fear of their safe
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
5 See Edwards, d at 607 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding first-degree assault was committed in a particularly serious way because the defendant put at risk a large number of people who were near the victim when the defendant shot him); (upholding upward durational sentencing departure in second-degree unintentional murder case because shots fired in a bar put others at risk); (affirming an upward durational sentencing departure because, among other reas
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
Cf. State v. Mitjans (stating that Spanish speaking defendant “was no more [disabled] in understanding and in expressing himself to [a bilingual police officer] than an English-speaking suspect is in understanding and in expressing himself to an English-speaking officer”).
State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Thus, in Cole, d at 53 , the court wrote that “assault in the second degree itself forms a proper predicate felony to a felony murder conviction — assault is not a property crime, but a crime against the person.” -34 (Minn.1987), the court suggested that the special-danger standard only arises in the context of property crimes, writing that “[b]y definition, felony murder involves an unintentional killing resulting from the commission of a crime against the person or from the commission of some
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
Specifically, in evaluating the translation of testimony, this court asks whether the “testimony was ‘on the whole adequate and accurate.’ ”
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
(45-month departure from the presumptive sentence justified where defendant discharged a long-barreled .38-caliber revolver in a public bar).
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that all criminal defendants who are handicapped in communication are “treated as fairly as [those] who speak[] English fluently.”
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(noting absence of argument on whether legislature could permit suspicion-less stops of cars with special plates).
State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-31 (Minn.1987) (finding the legislature did not create a new constitutional right or intend to exclude all statements taken in violation of Minn.Stat.
State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In addressing this claim, we apply a standard which asks whether the translation of trial testimony was “on the whole adequate and accurate.”
State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(statements made by defendant to an officer were admissible as admission by a party opponent where officer was present in court, under oath and subject to cross-examination).
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
whether or not to suppress evidence ob *788 tained in violation of a statute or rule is “a quintessentially judicial issue.” For example, violation of the procedure set out in Fed.R.Crim.P.
State v. Lee 494 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1993
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
29 , 112 L.Ed.2d 7 (1990); City of St.