Cited by

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

292 citing documents.

State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating critical impact has been shown in cases “where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state’s case,” and “in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution”).
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
551 (Minn.1987) (stating critical impact is shown where the state’s case is destroyed without the suppressed evidence or where the absence of the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution)..
State v. Meland 616 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Meland 616 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(defining “critical impact”).
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Fisher 588 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Fisher 588 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Miller 586 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Miller 586 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
To prevail on appeal from a pretrial order, the state must clearly and unequivocally show both that “the trial court erred in its judgment and * * * the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (citation omitted)
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998
State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Reynolds 578 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Reynolds 578 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Holmes 569 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1997
State v. Holmes 569 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1997
I. In reviewing the appeal of a pretrial ruling, we will reverse a trial court determination “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.”
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(standard of review in state’s appeal of pretrial order).
STATE, CITY OF BELLE PLAINE v. Stradcutter 568 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1997

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by