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 v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
    Next, in order for the appeal to be considered, as a threshold matter “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.” 3 ().
  • State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    If the state appeals pretrial suppression orders, 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. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    ANALYSIS On appeal from 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.” ().
  • State v. Anderson 671 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Anderson 671 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Standard of review When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order it “must clearly and unequivocally show that both 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. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    If the state appeals pretrial suppression orders in felony cases, 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.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Whitley 649 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Whitley 649 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    -17 (Minn.1998); (Miranda warning also designed to protect defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
  • State v. Larsen 637 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Larsen 637 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (stating that when state appeals from pretrial suppression order, it must show that suppressed evidence had critical impact on state’s ability to prosecute successfully).
  • State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “[T]he critical impact of the suppression must be first determined before deciding whether the suppression order was made in error.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    1(1) provided that in suppression of evidence cases, “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.” ().