Legal Opinion
State v. Solheim
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 3, 1991No. C5-91-989PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge.
This appeal is from a pretrial order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
On July 31, 1990, Jed Gregory Solheim and two companions allegedly met with a Shakopee undercover officer and an informant known as “Hal” to complete a purchase of ten pounds of marijuana. This transaction had been arranged through “Hal” and through a mutual acquaintance of “Hal” and Solheim.
Solheim was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana. He gave notice of an entrapment defense and requested its submission to a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. Joon Kyu KimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Syrovatka v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- State v. FordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. CainCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. UnderdahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. RambahalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. RennekeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Commonwealth v. SaletinoMassachusetts Superior Court · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.