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 v. Lang 432 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Lang 432 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    -551 (Minn.1987) (critical impact shown when order destroys state’s case or likelihood of successful prosecution is significantly reduced).
  • State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    This court may reverse “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. Norberg 423 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Norberg 423 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The state’s burden of clearly establishing that the trial court’s
  • State v. Lyons 423 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Lyons 423 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    In addition, restated the critical impact test: “the prosecution may appeal before trial from a suppression order only ‘where the effect is to seriously impede, although not to completely foreclose, continuation of the prosecution’.” Id.
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Anderson 415 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 415 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    * * ⅜ * * * [T]he prosecution may appeal before trial from a suppression order only “where the effect is to seriously impede, although not to completely foreclose, continuation of the prosecution.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Spencer 414 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Spencer 414 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    On a pretrial appeal, the state must show the trial court’s ruling is clearly erroneous and the suppression of the statement “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Since we conclude the trial court’s order was not clearly erroneous, we need not determine whether the state has shown such an order “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 409 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 409 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Carlson 408 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Carlson 408 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Durante 406 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Durante 406 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Recio-Arecibia 404 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Recio-Arecibia 404 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Critical impact is shown where the suppression of evidence “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Schnorr 403 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schnorr 403 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Krech 399 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Krech 399 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987