DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

292 citing documents.

  • STATE, CITY OF BELLE PLAINE v. Stradcutter 568 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Edrozo 567 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Edrozo 567 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    In an appeal from a pretrial order, this court will not reverse the district court’s determination unless the state clearly and unequivocally shows that (1) the district court erred and (2) absent reversal, the error will have a “critical impact on the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    -51 (Minn.1987) (noting history of the “critical impact” rule and origin in statute requiring that suppressed evidence have a critical impact on prosecution).
  • State v. Bunde 556 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Bunde 556 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hegstrom 543 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    -51 (Minn.1987) (in pretrial appeal, state must show clearly and unequivocally that trial court erred and that error will have critical impact on outcome of prosecution).
  • State v. Gilmartin 535 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Gilmartin 535 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Lotton 527 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Lotton 527 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Wills 524 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (state in pretrial appeal must show clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred and that the error will have critical impact on the outcome of trial).
  • State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    We will reverse a pretrial suppression order only if the state “clearly and unequivocally”- establishes that the district court erred and that the order will have “critical impact.”
  • State v. Jones 518 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Jones 518 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Bloom 516 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Bloom 516 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1994
    The Kim rule is the rule that emerged from three cases:
  • State v. Bauer 512 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Bauer 512 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Alt 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Alt 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    The state agreed to submit the probability evidence of a match at each locus separately
  • State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993
    Finally, the trial court limited the use of statistical frequency evidence here, in order to avoid a “potentially exaggerated impact on the trier of fact” in violation of Minn. R.Evid.
  • State v. Tolbert 488 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Tolbert 488 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    The state in a pretrial appeal must show the order appealed from is clearly erroneous and “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
    At the outset we note that the exclusion of these statements rather obviously “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992