Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cunningham v. Salata, 607 N.W.2d 774.

17 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Patrick Jay Sullivan Minn. 2026
“It is a fundamental rule in double jeopardy jurisprudence that a verdict of acquittal on the merits cannot be reviewed on error or otherwise without putting the defendant twice in jeopardy, thereby violating the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.” (first citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896); and then citing Leroy, d at 77).
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
–27 (Minn. 1985); n.2 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When a district court declares a mistrial “because of manifest necessity, retrial is normally not barred because the original jeopardy has not terminated.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions protect a criminal defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal on the merits.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
cides, Melchert-Dinkel argues that the district court’s failure to address assistance “should be deemed an acquittal.” “A [district] court’s actions amount to an acquittal on the merits when the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution in defendant’s favor, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offenses charged.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
V. “A [district] court’s actions constitute an acquittal on the merits when the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution in defendant’s favor, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offenses charged.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 64, 98 S. Ct. 2170, 2179 (1978); - 37 (Minn. 2006)
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
Both “the United States and Minnesota Constitutions protect a criminal defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal on the merits.” (footnote omitted) (citing U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
A trial court’s actions constitute “an acquittal on the merits when ‘the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution [in defendant’s favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offenses charged.’ ” (alteration in original)(quoting United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 97 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
We consider whether “the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution [in defendant’s favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.” (quoting United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 97 , 98 S.Ct.