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. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412.

137 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    3 DECISION When the state appeals a pretrial order suppressing evidence, 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.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 852 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 852 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    4 DECISION When the state appeals a pretrial order suppressing evidence, 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.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    If 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.” (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (stating that, to appeal a pretrial order in a felony case, the state must show that the 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 v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    ANALYSIS When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, 1 “the state must clearly *691 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 v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The critical-impact requirement is satisfied if the suppression of evidence destroys the prosecution’s ability to prosecute or “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
  • State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
    The critical impact requirement has evolved into a “threshold issue,” so that “ ⅛ the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.’ ” (); (noting the change to the Webber decision’s order of analysis to require critical impact to be determined before deciding whether the trial court erred).
  • State v. Kail 760 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Kail 760 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (stating critical impact must be established before this court determines whether the district court’s pretrial determination was erroneous).
  • State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
    As a “threshold matter” in any pretrial appeal by the State, “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.” (); see also Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, the state “must ‘clearly and un *839 equivocally 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 v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    If the state appeals from a pretrial suppression order, it must “clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on [its] ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Krasky 721 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Krasky 721 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    ANALYSIS 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.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    ANALYSIS If the state appeals from a pretrial suppression order, it “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.” ().
  • State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    ANALYSIS A. When 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 defen *539 dant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
    Critical impact is a threshold issue and “[i]n the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.” (explaining that although we had previously stated that we decide the evidentiary issue first, making critical impact a threshold issue).