Legal Opinion

State v. Super

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 20, 2010No. A09-242PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree intentional murder following a court trial, arguing that: (1) the district court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense by not granting use immunity to one of appellant’s witnesses or to continue appellant’s trial until the conclusion of the appeal of that witness’s conviction and (2) the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. The district court did not err by failing to order use immunity or to continue appellant’s trial because the state’s litigation tactics do not…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. State v. TurnipseedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. State v. CooperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  5. State v. BlissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. RobideauCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API