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. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719.

63 citing documents.

  • State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    The critical impact standard is demanding but it “does not require that the suppression order render the available proof insufficient as a matter of law, or so *53 weak as to effectively destroy a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Torgrimson 637 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Torgrimson 637 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    723 n. 6 (Minn.1998) (noting, while holding that surreptitious taping in back seat of squad car was not custodial interrogation, that parties did not raise Fourth Amendment issue).
  • In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • 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. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
    However, “the critical impact rule does not require that the suppression order render the available proof insufficient as a matter of law, or so weak as to effectively destroy a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lucas 589 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1999
    On appeal from a pre-trial suppression order, the state must show “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred * * * and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (internal citation omitted).
  • State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
    -23 (Minn.1998), we further emphasized this procedural change as a threshold issue, but Edrozo was published after this case had been briefed.