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. Smith, 367 N.W.2d 497.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    at 168; see 4 ( ruling that suppression was not required based on violation of Minnesota Government Data Practices Act).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (declining to decide whether disclosure of the address of a welfare client to police, absent a court order, violated the MGDPA because even if there was a technical violation, suppression was not required).
  • State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 504 (Minn. 1985).Suppression of evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule is not required if "the violation is merely technical and did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute."
  • State v. Luby 904 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2017
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
    -05 (Minn.1985) (declining to apply section 626.21 to evidence obtained pursuant to a search of the defendant’s residence, despite the fact that the disclosure of the defendant’s address to police may have been prohibited by statute, because the violation “did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute”).
  • State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    at 863-64 (-05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because the violation was a technical violation of a statute where there was little doubt a court order would have been issued on request); -09 (Minn.1983) *277 (citing other cases to the same effect); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 38
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    See, (holding evidence of premeditation sufficient where the victim was tied up and stabbed at least 40 times, and the attack took place in more than one area of the house over an extended period of time); (holding evidence of premeditation was sufficient wh
  • State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
  • Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (holding that although statutory violations may require suppression, “a technical violation which did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute” did not).
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
    We conclude that, although circumstantial, the evidence supporting defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that the facts and circumstances, when looked at in the light most favorable to the verdict, are wholly consistent with guilt of burglary, felony murder, premeditated murder, and its attempt, and inconsistent with any theory of defendant’s innocence.
  • State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Tilleskjor 488 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    -05 (Minn.1985) (suppression not required of all evidence seized in searches constituting or arising from a violation of statute if violation was technical and “did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute”); -41 (Minn.1978) (technical violation of statutory prohibition of nig
  • State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
    See, -05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because violation was technical violation of *864 statute and “[tjhere can be little doubt that a court order would have been issued on request”); -09 (Minn.1983) (citing some of the other cases of this court to the same effect); State v.
  • State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
    8; (denying motion for mistrial); (reversing for failure to disclose).
  • State v. Quinn 436 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Quinn 436 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1989
    police learned of the defendant’s address from welfare authorities in violation of provisions of the act.
  • Swenson v. State 426 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Swenson v. State 426 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    where the victim was bound at the time he was fatally stabbed.
  • State v. Torkelson 404 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Torkelson 404 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Swenson 396 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986