 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, A06-840,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Minnesota's Commissioner of Finance disbursed funds pursuant to a court order without a legislative appropriation, although doctrine of laches did not preclude relief, quo warranto was not an appropriate action for legislators to challenge Commissioner's disbursement, because the official conduct was not ongoing; the case was nonjusticiable.
|
|||||
| State v. Bancroft, A06-978,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of minor girl's stepfather for unlawful touching under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(b) was upheld over claim of insufficient evidence and improper stipulation on issue of whether he was in "position of authority" because evidence of position in household was sufficient to support conviction and because no improper stipulation occurred.
|
|||||
| State v. Campbell, A06-250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of first-degree assault, was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor committed prejudicial error during closing argument by manufacturing an explanation for the lack of blood on a board found near the victim although there was no medical or expert evidence suggesting that the board caused the victim's injuries.
|
|||||
| State v. Coughlin, A07-239,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 6, did not require a prosecutor to file written notice of intent to prosecute if a defendant was restored to competence within three years of the initial finding of incompetency to stand trial, unless that initial finding was followed by a continuous period of incompetency lasting at least three years.
|
|||||
| State v. Derby, A06-670,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a fifth-degree controlled-substance case, because any omissions by the officer (who drafted the affidavit for the search warrant) were not reckless or intentional, the omissions did not invalidate the warrant, and the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State v. Engle, A05-2423,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported appellant's conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(3) because, once district court rejected appellant's theory that victim lunged at appellant causing his firearm to discharge, ample evidence showed that appellant acted recklessly by consciously disregarding risk that his gun would discharge and cause harm.
|
|||||
| State v. Henry, A06-671,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, was properly denied suppression of a gun because a stop and frisk was supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion under Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, as the officer was responding to a call about a stabbing, and defendant was jogging away from the area holding one side of his coat.
|
|||||
| State v. Kjorness, A06-697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's controlled substance conviction was reversed as the officer's request for defendant's consent to search during a traffic stop was not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity, the search violated Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, and the evidence obtained as a result of the search was not admissible.
|
|||||
| State v. Latraille, A06-805,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for third degree burglary and receiving stolen property were upheld over claims of insufficient evidence and invalid waiver of jury consideration of sentencing because record contained evidence sufficient to support verdicts and because circumstances of waiver of jury consideration of sentence enhancements established validity thereof.
|
|||||
| State v. Lenear, A06-1725,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's enhanced sentence for criminal sexual conduct was remanded for resentencing, the trial court erred by imposing the presumptive sentence without making a discretionary determination of whether to exercise its authority to impanel a resentencing jury as doing so would not have violated double jeopardy under Minn. Const. art. I, § 7.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
