Legal Opinion

State v. Enoch

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 20, 2010No. Nos. A09-1384, A09-1385PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

JOHNSON, Judge.

In these consolidated cases, Laura Josephine Enoch and Jeri Ann Watson were charged separately with fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Enoch and Watson jointly moved to dismiss their cases for lack of probable cause on the ground that the state had evidence only of a field test, but not of a confirmatory test, to prove that the substances seized from them are, in fact, methamphetamine. After an eviden-tiary hearing, the district court denied the joint motion to dismiss. At Enoch’s and Watson’s request, the district court then certified…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. FlorenceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. State v. RudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. State v. KoenigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative LitigationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  5. State v. LariveeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ArendsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  2. State v. KnochCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API