Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bluhm, 460 N.W.2d 22.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Abdusalam Omar Hussein, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Abdusalam Omar Hussein, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2, the trial court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before trial is commenced, provided the trial court allows continuances where needed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(discussing rule 3.04 and holding that “since jeopardy had not attached the [district] court was free to allow an amendment”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(discussing rule 3.04 and holding that 9 “since jeopardy had not attached the [district] court was free to allow an amendment”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 3.04, the district court “is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additi onal offenses before trial is commenced, provided the [district] court allows continuances where needed.” State v. Bluhm
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2, a district court is “relatively free” to permit the state to amend a complaint prior to trial, “provided the [district] court allows continuances where needed.”
Minn. 2021
See, (noting prosecutor’s discretion to amend a criminal complaint).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court is “relatively free” to permit the state to amend a complaint prior to trial, “provided the [district] court allows continuances where needed.” State v. Bluhm , see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nelson does not explain why the state’s amendment of the complaint—a legal and fairly common decision, even if it changes th e offenses charged, see State v. Bluhm , (“[T]he [district] court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before trial is commenced .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under rule 3.04, subdivision 2, “the trial court is relatively free to permit am endments to charge additional of fenses before trial is commenced, provided the trial court allows continuances where needed.”
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
2(b) (providing that the State may amend a criminal complaint if "the evidence presented establishes probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a different offense from that charged in the complaint, and the prosecutor intends to charge the defendant with that offense"); see also State v. Bluhm , , 24 (Minn. 1990) (noting that the State is "relatively free" to amend its criminal complaint in pre-trial proceedings); State v. Linehan , 276 Minn. 349 , , 206 (1967) (holding that the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2, the trial court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before trial is commenced, provided the trial court allows continuances where needed.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “the [district] court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before trial is commenced” under rule 3.04, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
aff 'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ajfd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rule 17.05 “ ‘refers to motions to amend ⅜ * ⅜ complaints after the commencement of trial.’ ” (quotation and citation omitted).
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Aviles-Alvarez 561 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Distinguished State v. Aviles-Alvarez 561 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
which Aviles cites for the proposition that a defendant’s knowledge of the amount of a controlled substance involved in the crime charged is an essential element of the offense.
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
(holding that Minn.R.Crim.P.