Cited by

Generally, the district court must suppress evidence obtained via an Gradishar, ().

(declining review of the defendant’s cross-appeal after determining that the state failed to show critical impact), aff’d, .

A challenged ruling has a critical impact if it “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

1, “where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

A challenged ruling has a critical impact 3 if it “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

A “critical impact” includes when a district court suppresses evidence that “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

The state can show critical impact when the exclusion of evidence “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

Because suppression of this evidence “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution,” (), we agree that the critical impact requirement has been met here.

“Critical impact has been shown not only in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful 5 prosecution.”

“Critical impact has been shown not only in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

The state can make this showing when suppression of evidence “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” ().

And “[c]ritical impact has been shown not only in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

“Critical impact has been shown not only in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

2(2)(b) (requiring showing of critical impact); State v. Kim , (defining the critical impact threshold).

The state can satisfy the critical -impact standard if the challenged ruling either “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

The state can satisfy the critical -impact standard if the challenged ruling either “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

’” State v. McLeod , ().

“Critical impact is a threshold showing that must be made in order for an appellate court to have jurisdiction.” State v. Gradishar , (citing State v. Kim , ).

Critical impact is established if “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

D E C I S I O N When the state appeals a pretrial -suppression order , it “must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” State v. Zanter , (quoting State v. Kim , ) .

To establish critical impact, the state n eed not show that the pretrial ruling “completely destroys the state’s case,” but it is sufficient that it “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” State v. McLeod , (quoting State v. Joon Kyu Kim , ).

Critical impact is shown when “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful pr osecution.”

Critical impact is established if “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

(citing State v. Kim , (Mi nn.

5 D E C I S I O N “[An appellate] court will, in a pretrial appeal , reverse the determination of the [district] court only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally, first, that the [district] court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”

In a state’s pretrial appeal, this court will “reverse the determination of the trial court only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().

See, (clarifying that the Web-ber critical-impact requirement does not require the State to show that the lack of the suppressed evidence "completely destroys” its case; it is enough that the lack "significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution”); (Min

Reps argues that the state failed to establish that suppression of the blood-test results will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute, because the state has other significant direct and circumstantial evidence.

When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “‘must clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (

“Critical impact has been shown when ‘the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

Critical impact is shown when “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”

Critical impact is shown when “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”