Legal Opinion

State v. Lushenko

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 30, 2006No. A05-819PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HALBROOKS, Judge.

Appellant challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of the show-up identification procedure and the district court’s authority to conduct a bifurcated trial on the issue of whether appellant is a career offender under the statute. Although we conclude that the *731show-up identification was unnecessarily suggestive, because it was reliable and because the district court had the inherent authority to craft a bifurcated sentencing procedure, we affirm.

FACTS

When Brian Brunetta arrived at his house around noon on June 3, 2004, he observed an…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. State v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  5. State v. AmosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. LushenkoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API