Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Twiss, 570 N.W.2d 487.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that loss of job resulting from conviction is not a special circumstance allowing district court to stay adjudication; rather, “it is the sort of consequence that commonly attends a conviction of a 8 serious offense”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“The necessity requirement is met here as a result of [the witness’s] unavailability due to his refusal to testify.”); (“The requirement of necessity is fulfilled by a showing that the declarant is unavailable.”), overruled on other grounds by Craw
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
[and] defendant was never formally adjudicated guilty of these two counts.”); (affirming on other grounds when the reviewing court agrees with the result reached but not the analysis).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But the supreme court previously has determined that a potential loss of employment is not a “special circumstance.” (“The possibility that a defendan t may lose her job .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
(-93 (Minn.1997)); -02 (Minn.1981).
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
(interpreting the catch-all provision under Minn. *409 R. Evid.
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that possibility of loss of employment due to gross misdemeanor conviction was not a “special circumstance” supporting stay of adjudication).
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65, 100 S.Ct.
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
this court reversed the district court’s stay of adjudication of the defendant’s guilty plea, which had been granted over the objection of the prosecutor based on the possibility that the defendant might lose her job if convicted of a gross misdemeanor.
State v. Colby 657 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Colby 657 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that possibility that defendant might lose her job is not a special circumstance); Ohrt, d at 792 (holding that lack of a criminal record is not a special circumstance).
State v. Angotti 633 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Angotti 633 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
487 (Minn.1997); review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
(citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Foss, d at 541 (describing intention to limit use of stays of adjudication to cases where prosecutor’s clear abuse of charging function creates injustice); (holding that possible loss of job due to criminal conviction is typical consequence of serious offense, and not special circumstance); -15 (describing continuance for dismissal and stay of adjudication as “functionally equivalent,” applying Krotzer-Foss-Thoma s
State v. Leming 617 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Leming 617 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(possible loss of a job due to criminal conviction is not a “special circumstance”; rather it is a typical consequence of a conviction for a serious offense); (collateral consequences of conviction for underage drinking and driving, including loss of
State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding that “possibility that defendant might lose job if convicted *165 of gross misdemeanor malicious punishment of a child was not a special circumstance”).
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
(applying abuse of discretion standard in pretrial appeal of trial court decision excluding evidence as inadmissible hearsay not covered by catch-all exception).
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998