DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Foss, 556 N.W.2d 540.

75 citing documents.

  • State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Following Krotzer , the supreme court wrote to the issues of stays in Foss, holding that the stays must “be relied upon sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor’s clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of its charging function.”
  • State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The “inherent judicial authority” recognized in Krotzer is to be used “sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor’s clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.” (emphasis omitted); see also Thoma, d at 208 (holding that stay of adjudication of criminal charge “is justified only if the [district] court, after reviewing the circumstances of the case, determines that the prosecutor’s charging decision was a clear abuse of discre
  • 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
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    the supreme court explained that, in Krotzer , it had held that if “special circumstances” are present, then a trial court may stay an adjudication of guilty over the prosecutor’s objection without violating the separation-of-powers doctrine.
  • 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. T.M.B. 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. TMB 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. T.M.B. 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See, (judiciary may not interfere with prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in performance of charging function absent clear abuse of discretion); In re Office of Dist.
  • State v. TMB 590 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See, (judiciary may not interfere with prosecutor's exercise of discretion in performance of charging function absent clear abuse of discretion); In re Office of Dist.
  • State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
    The inherent judicial power recognized in Krotzer is limited, and is to be “relied upon sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor’s dear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.” (emphasis in original).
  • State v. Twiss 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Twiss 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Thoma 569 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Cash 558 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cash 558 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1997