State v. Lushenko
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. AmosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. LushenkoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006