Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Streiff, 673 N.W.2d 831.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Caselaw instructs us that dismissal of a complaint under section 631.21 “ordinarily would not have the effect of precluding the prosecutor from recharging the accused.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
1 1 Matter also urges this court to reduce her sentence because “a justice system must have room for mercy and compassion,” citing Justice Paul H. Anderson’s (Anderson, J., concurring).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
in support of his position.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The discretion to bring criminal charges “rests almost entirely with the prosecutor.”
Minn. 2020
See State v. Streiff , (discussing the “division of power” and how “bringing charges and plea bargaining .
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See State v. Streiff , , 836 (Minn. 2004) (discussing the "division of power" and how "bringing charges and plea bargaining ...
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Matthew McKenzie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Matthew McKenzie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing “division of power” between prosecutor and district court and stating that, with regard to “bringing charges and plea bargaining, the discretion rests almost entirely with the prosecutor”); State v. Andrews, 282 Minn. 386, 391 & n.4, & n.4 (1969) (noting that parti
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
., the discretion rests almost entirely with the court.”
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing dismissal by the court under Minn. Stat. § 631.21 (2002)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
e Court has reaffirmed numerous times that “[a]s a general rule, the prosecutor’s decision whom to prosecute and what charge to file is a discretionary matter which is not subject to judicial review absent proof by defendant of deliberate discrimination based on some unjustifiable standard such as race, sex, or religion.”
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
(Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring) (“[T]he executive branch’s power to charge a criminal offense is awesome and sometimes may be difficult to exercise in a just manner.”).
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Andrade 736 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2007
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s , 835 n. 3 (Minn.2004), suggests that the roots for Fame’s, dishonored-plea reference are in an unpublished opinion of this court, an opinion that does not deal with a withdrawn offer.