State v. Helenbolt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
This is a pretrial appeal by the state pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, from an order of the district court denying a motion by the state to compel testimony by defendant’s alleged accomplice at defendant’s trial without granting the accomplice immunity from prosecution. The defendant, in a motion to dismiss, argues that the state has failed to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred in its decision and that the court’s ruling will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. Although we deny the motion to dismiss, we agree that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. WebberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. DilgerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. HelenboltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. PelovskyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. SchmiegCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. FisherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981