DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Berkelman, 355 N.W.2d 394.

85 citing documents.

  • State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (holding that in gross misdemeanor DWI prosecution, the district court should have accepted defendant’s offer to stipulate to a prior conviction); (stating that the court should allow a defendant to stipulate to being a convicted felon during a trial for
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    See Davidson, d at 11 (defendant may stipulate to being convicted felon for purposes of trial for felon in possession of handgun); (in gross misdemeanor DWI prosecution, defendant’s offer to stipulate to prior convictions prevents admission of evidence); (defendant charged with aggravated DWI permitted to avoid evidence of prior conviction for driving after revocation).
  • In re the Welfare of L.G.S. 568 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • In re the Welfare of L.G.S. 568 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    *184 (Minn.1984) (prior conviction is essential element of gross misdemeanor charge under similar enhancement statute for DWI offenses).
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Although we recognize that a change in the degree of a crime may be an important criterion in some instances, we do not think the critical distinction here is between offense-enhancing and sentence-enhancing convictions.
  • State v. Carnahan 482 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Carnahan 482 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (gross misdemeanor DWI); (aggravated DWI).
  • State v. Fussy 467 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Fussy 467 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Fussy 458 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Fussy 458 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kroshus 447 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Kroshus 447 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Parker 417 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Parker 417 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Marty 376 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Marty 376 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Allen 375 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Allen 375 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    397 n. 2 (Minn.1984) (risk is considerable that the jury will use evidence of prior conviction for driving while under the influence in determining whether the defendant *38 is guilty of the charged act of driving while under the influence).
  • State v. Eliason 361 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 361 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 361 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Eliason 361 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    said while it may have been error for a trial court to reject appellant’s offer to stipulate to the prior conviction, the error was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial.
  • State v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1984