Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509.

114 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 509, 515 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah James Shefelbine Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah James Shefelbine Minn. Ct. App. 2016
is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2016
is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 (“The only prejudice attested to at the hearing was the stress, anxiety and inconvenience experienced by anyone who is involved in a trial.”).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[t]he only prejudice attested to .
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Failing to commence trial within 60 days of the demand raised “a presumption that a [speedy-trial-right] violation ha[d] occurred.” (“[D]elays greater than 60 days after a demand for speedy trial has been made are presumptively prejudicial and require further inquiry to determine whether there was good cause for the delay.”).
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“The only prejudice attested to at the hearing was the stress, anxiety and inconvenience experienced by anyone who is involved in a trial.
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But “conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing and must not be unduly restrictive.”
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Doyle 778 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that, while the district court’s judicial notice that its calendar was crowded was not erroneous because it was supported by the record and unchallenged by either party, “it would have been a better practice for the [district] court to specifically state its intention to take judicial notice
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-17 (Minn.1993) (no constitutional violation where defendant’s motions were primary reason for delay); -15 (Minn.1989) (defendant’s late removal of judge and failure to inform assignment clerk of speedy-trial demand weighs against claimed violation of constitutional speedy-trial rights); (defense counsel’s statements and conduct in setting the omnibus hearing and
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
201(b) (defining a judicially noticed fact as a fact generally known or “capable of accurate and ready *407 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); (Popovich, J., dissenting).
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Cham 680 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Instead, the court reasoned that the cost of the matter had exceeded reasonable limits, that numerous attempts at obtaining an interpreter had failed, and that “based upon the inability of the Court to obtain an interpreter, the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been denied.” for the proposition that the decision of the district court that Cham’s right to a speedy trial has been violated is reviewed using an abuse-of-discretion standard.
In Re Brown 640 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
In Re Brown 640 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
(concluding there was no abuse of discretion when district court found good cause for delay in scheduling trial).
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Franklin 604 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2000
State v. Franklin 604 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2000
In State v. Friberg, we held that such conditions “must be reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing and must not be unduly restrictive of the probationer’s liberty or autonomy.”
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993
State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993