Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544.

292 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Critical impact is shown when “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
When a district court’s order excludes evidence in a criminal prosecution, the State need not show that the exclusion destroys its case; rather, the State need only demonstrate that “excluding the evidence ‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’ ” McLeod, d at 784 ().
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
A district court’s order suppressing evidence will have a critical impact on the State’s ability to prosecute the defendant if “the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” -51 (Minn.1987).
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
2 was reinforced by our decision in State v. Kim, where we upheld the critical impact requirement as a “fair and workable rule.”
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The standard for critical impact is that the dismissal “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
This threshold condition is intended to be a demanding standard and requires the State to show that the ruling “ ‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’ ” ().
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In a critical-impact inquiry, we consider whether “the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case” or “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
The state can show that evidence that has been excluded has a critical impact not only when excluding the evidence “completely destroys” the state’s case, but also when excluding the evidence “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
remaining evidence is so weak that all possibility of conviction has been destroyed or that ab: sence of the evidence will result in dismissal; critical impact may be shown where lack of suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of conviction, or “where the effect is to seriously impede, although not to completely foreclose, continuation of the prosecution.” (citation omitted).
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“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.”
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
“Critical impact is met when the suppression of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” ().
State v. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001