Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lucas, 372 N.W.2d 731.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But unlike the United States Supreme Court, which “has declined to consider any reason justifying exclusion beyond deterrence,” the Minnesota Supreme Court “has never used such absolute language, instead emphasizing that deterrence is a purpose, but not the only purpose, of exclusion.” Malecha, d at 577 n.4; see, (declining to apply the exclusionary rule where suppression of the evidence would “not serve to deter misconduct by police officers” and admission of the evidence would “not compromise
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. 2024
(applying an exclusionary rule analysis to determine the admissibility, in a Minnesota prosecution, of evidence obtained in another state, “[t]aking into account the several policy reasons underlying the exclusionary rule,” and concluding that the trial court correctly refused to exclude evidence bec
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
10 (“[E]ven if the indictment had not used ‘aiding and abetting’ language, the jury would have been free to base the murder conviction on a determination that [the] defendant was liable as an aider or abettor.”); , 42 (Minn. 1979) (affirming conviction for aiding a
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ostrem, d at 922–23 (rejecting argument that district court erred by submitting case to jury on accomplice-liability theory, despite state’s failure to cite section 609.05 in complaint, reasoning in part that “we have previously held that a jury may convict the defendant of aiding and abetting despite the absence of ‘aiding and abetting’ language in the complaint”); (stating that “even if the indictment had not used ‘aiding and abetting’ language, the jury would have been free 10 to base the mur
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Later, we used the “exclusionary rule” approach to resolve a choice-of-law issue relating to evidence collected in another jurisdiction.
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
(holding that use of the word “co-conspirator,” rather than the name of the co-conspirator identified in the indictment, in jury instructions was an “insignificant [change] that could not have prejudiced defendant”).
State v. Schmidt 712 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2006
State v. Schmidt 712 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2006
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
On appeal, should- be applied to the circumstances, permitting the forum state to admit the evidence, even though it would have been unlawfully obtained in the forum state, because the seizure of the evidence was valid in the search state.
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
in proposing that this court adopt an exclusionary-rule analysis in determining when to use DWI convictions and license revocations resulting from uncounseled pre-test determinations for enhancement purposes.
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
*172 provides the rule of law for this case.
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The state argues that where there is a conflicts-of-law situation in the context of a criminal prosecution, Minnesota courts prefer to apply an “exclusionary rule analysis rather than a traditional conflicts of law approach to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained in another state.”
State v. Bakken 604 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bakken 604 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(statement admitted under 801(d)(1)(B) to help jury assess memory and motivation).
In Re the Welfare of D.W.O. 594 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of D.W.O. 594 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-41 (Minn.1985) (holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesser-included offense of first-degree murder).
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 520 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Ostrem 520 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(affirming conviction for aiding and abetting where statute was not mentioned in complaint).
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
we said that the defense of withdrawal is without merit absent evidence that the defendant made an “effort to warn the police or the victim or prevent the other coconspirators from committing the crime.” There is no *115 evidence here that defendant did more than simply quit pulling on the purse stra
Piotrowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 453 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1990
Piotrowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 453 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1990
See Schinzing, d at 108-09 (refusing to decide whether exclusionary rule should apply to a violation of Minnesota law by a Minnesota officer acting within the State of Minnesota but outside his jurisdiction), -37 (Minn.1985) (rejecting conflicts-of-law approach and adopting exclusionary rule approach to issue of whether evidence seized in another state should be excluded in a Minnesota prosecution).
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
cf. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 224 , 80 S.Ct.
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
-737 (Minn.1985), and there decided to use an exclusionary rule analysis rather than a traditional conflicts of law approach to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained in another state.