Legal Opinion

Buhl v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 7, 2019No. A18-0245PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I. The district court correctly concluded that this court's reversal of appellant's conviction was not on "grounds consistent with innocence."

Following the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Back v. State , a petitioner can qualify as exonerated only under Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(1)(ii). 902 N.W.2d 23, 31 (Minn. 2017) (severing Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(1)(i) ). Under this definition, a petitioner is "exonerated" if a court of the state of Minnesota "ordered a new trial on grounds consistent with innocence and the prosecutor dismissed the charges or the petitioner was found not…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Elkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Michelson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Davis v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. State v. BolteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. James Paul Aery v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
  2. Randy Dale Sixta, Appellant, vs. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, RespondentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API