Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Freeman, 531 N.W.2d 190.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Even if the witness disclosure violated Brady or Rule 9, it was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (reviewing discovery error under harmless-error analysis); see also Jackson, d at 479 (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 190, 197-98 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Palubicki, 7 -90 (Minn. 2005); -98 (Minn. 1995); -74 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he preclusion of evidence is a severe sanction that should not be lig htly invoked.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
(applying harmless error analysis).
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
“[OJnce a discovery violation has occurred, a district court ‘is particularly suited to determine the appropriate remedy * * ” (-98 (Minn.1995)).
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
However, once a discovery violation has occurred, a district court “is particularly suited to determine the appropriate remedy and has wide discretion in deciding whether to impose sanctions.” -98 (Minn.1995).
State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000