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. Krotzer, 548 N.W.2d 252.

80 citing documents.

  • State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Special circumstances A district court should not interfere with the prosecutor’s charging function “absent evidence of selective or discriminatory prosecutorial intent, or an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
  • State v. Ohrt 619 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Ohrt 619 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -55 (Minn.1996) (holding that courts have inherent authority in “special circumstances” to stay adjudication); (explaining that stays of adjudication should only be used sparingly and to correct a clear abuse of the prosecutor’s discretion in charging).
  • State v. Leming 617 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Leming 617 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Nevertheless, apart from an express rule or statute, a district court has “inherent power” to stay adjudication of an offense if “special circumstances” exist warranting this “unusual judicial measure[.]” -55 (Minn.1996).
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -55 (Minn.1996), the supreme court concluded that a decision to stay adjudication of a criminal charge is within the “inherent judicial power” of the district court.
  • State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    ANALYSIS While “a prosecutor has broad discretion in the exercise of the charging function,” stays of adjudication are within a trial court’s “inherent judicial power” and are appropriate in “special circumstances.” -55 (Minn.1996).
  • State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
    At a November 15, 1996, trial management conference, Windish’s
  • In Re Welfare of J.B.A. 581 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • In Re Welfare of J.B.A. 581 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    At the time the comments were drafted, the Minnesota Supreme Court had not yet affirmed this court’s
  • State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    The supreme court has held that the trial court has “inherent judicial power” to stay adjudication if “special circumstances” exist warranting this “unusual judicial measure[ ].” -55 (Minn.1996).
  • State v. Roloff 562 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Roloff 562 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Roloff argues a stay of adjudication is not equivalent to a conviction.
  • State v. Cash 558 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1997
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of M.A.R. 558 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Cash 558 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1997
    The issue on these three consolidated appeals is whether the trial judges in question, in staying adjudication in DWI cases
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of M.A.R. 558 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Foss 556 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Foss 556 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1996
    The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court, in staying adjudication for fifth-degree assault over the prosecutor’s objection
  • State v. Foss 554 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Foss 554 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    This court stayed the appeal pending the supreme court’s then vacated the stay after that decision was released, We affirm.