Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412.

137 citing documents.

Explained State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This court also noted in Schultz that, “since the supreme court decided Hicks, it has relaxed the critical impact standard.” Schultz, 2018 WL 4056591, at *3 (quotation omitted) ().
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Before an appellate court will review the merits of a pretrial order, however, the state must make a clear and unequivocal threshold showing that the appealed order “will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” d 412, 416 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To determine the impact of the suppressed evidence, appellate courts “must consider the state’s evidence as a whole.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(explaining that critical impact is required).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding suppressed confession had 6 critical impact even when it was not the only evidence in the record of the defendant’s involvement in a drive -by shooting); (holding suppressed confession had critical impact in prosecution for sexual abu
Kawaskii Antonio Blanche, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[G]enerally the suppression of a confession will have a critical impact on the prosecution.” State v. Scott , (stating suppression of defendant’s confession has critical impact despite the state having two eyew itnesses because suppression reduces likelihood of successful prosecution); (“Even if the state’s case is as strong as the court of
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’ s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” State v. Scott , (quotation omitted ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “must ‘clearly an d unequivocally’ show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” State v. Scott , (quoting State v. Zanter , ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
On appeal from a pretrial order suppressing evidence, the state “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he critical impact of the suppression must be first determined before deciding whether the suppression order was made in error.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N I. When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quoting State v. Zanter , ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hunn 899 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hunn 899 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, the state “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he critical impact of the suppression must be first determined before deciding whether the suppression order was made in error.”
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 877 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 877 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 28.04, it “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tou Vang Pal Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tou Vang Pal Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 The state first contends that the warrantless search of Lor’s vehicle was proper because it fell within the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement.2 Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 DECISION When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it first “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When appealing a pretrial suppression order, the state must “clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district court’s] order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick William Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick William Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Torrence Cortez Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Torrence Cortez Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION If the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, the state “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (); Minn. R. Crim.