Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180.

77 citing documents.

State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
( on the separation of powers doctrine and the power to establish rules of evidence); , 429 n. 6 (citing Willis, d at 184 ).
State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
29 , 112 L.Ed.2d 7 (1990); City of St.
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1991
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1991
18 We find no merit in appellant’s indicates the privilege against compelled self-incrimination protected by article 1, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution has been interpreted by this court to provide greater protection than does the privilege protected by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution.
State v. Nielsen 467 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1991
State v. Nielsen 467 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1991
Moreover, while refusing in Schwartz to decide the effect of the enactment of section 634.26, we cited, as a precaution to trial courts, of the separation of powers doctrine and the recognition therein that this court, not the legislature, has the primary responsibility for adopting rules relating to the admission of evidence in trials.
State v. Berge 464 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Berge 464 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
our supreme court again found the federal and state constitution protections against compelled self-incrimination coextensive.
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the supreme court held that a new statutory provision in the DWI law providing that evidence of the absence of a test may be submitted without comment, with an appropriate jury instruction, did not violate a defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
§ 634.26 (Supp. 1989); (discussing power to establish rules of evidence).
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
In any event, we have the primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for the regulation of evidentia-ry matters and we believe that statutory rules of evidence enforced as a matter of comity should be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, including Minn.R.Evid.
Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Abe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Abe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Yellowmexican 688 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Gross 335 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1983
Heddan v. Dirkswager 336 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1983
Heddan v. Dirkswager 336 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1983
State v. Gross 335 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1983
Defendant’s other contention, that the aggravated DWI statute is an impermissible ex post facto law