Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ronnebaum, 449 N.W.2d 722.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
VI); (stating that the initiation of the criminal prosecution is “usually [marked] by the filing of the complaint”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 32, 36 (Minn. 2011) (holding that state showed critical impact because suppression of wife’s statement bore directly on whether state could establish elements of disorderly conduct); (stating that district court’s suppression of confession “in .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“a suspect has no right to counsel, even if he asks for it, if no charge has been filed against him” and he is not in custody).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding suppressed confession had 6 critical impact even when it was not the only evidence in the record of the defendant’s involvement in a drive -by shooting); (holding suppressed confession had critical impact in prosecution for sexual abuse of a child); (“If suppressed, a confession ‘normally will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” (quoting Ronnebaum, d at
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[G]enerally the suppression of a confession will have a critical impact on the prosecution.” State v. Scott , (stating suppression of defendant’s confession has critical impact despite the state having two eyew itnesses because suppression reduces likelihood of successful prosecution); (“Even if the state’s case is as strong as the court of appeals says it is, that does not mean that the suppression of the confession 8 will not significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”);
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., id.; d 722, 724 (Minn. 1990)
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
McLeod, d at 787 (holding that state established critical impact in case alleging criminal sexual conduct involving children) (quotation omitted); (stating that “the suppression [of a confession] normally will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution” in cases of criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Miller 659 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
If suppressed, a confession “normally will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(defining “critical impact”).
State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
(citing Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 422 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Lotton 527 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Roers 520 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Roers 520 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Ault 478 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ault 478 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In addition, where the trial court suppresses a confession in a criminal sexual conduct case, “the suppression normally will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution.”
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
which involved the suppression of defendant’s confession of criminal sexual conduct.
State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(sixth amendment right to counsel attaches when the prosecution formally commences, as by filing of the complaint).