State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 12× by 9 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 · 2 courts↓ Fading · …if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. at p. 159 ✓
cited 6× by 5 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 · 2 courts↓ Fading · …clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. at p. 159 ✓
197 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent State v. Harris (2017)
“In so doing, we said that any contrary language in State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1977), was "overruled.” Id. .”
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Harris
Minn. · 2017 · confidence medium
In Lugo , we explained "what we meant in [State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. 1977)].” 887 N.W.2d at 481 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Catherine Nyree McCabe
Minn. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
In a state’s pretrial appeal, this court will “reverse the determination of the trial court only if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.1987) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. 1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In State v. Webber, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s reconsideration of its pretrial rulings during trial. 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. 1977) (affirming the district court’s authority to reconsider a suppression order in the midst of a trial, well outside the five-day window for appeal from a pretrial order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Underdahl (2×)
Minn. · 2009 · confidence medium
In State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977), we held that a pretrial order will only be reversed if the State “demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” The operation of Rule 28.04, subd. 2 was reinforced by our decision in State v. Kim, where we upheld the critical impact requirement as a “fair and workable rule.” 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gauster
Minn. · 2008 · confidence medium
But we “will not overturn a pretrial order of the district court unless ‘the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the [district] court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.’ ” State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 99 (Minn.2000) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Vonderharr
Minn. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS I. “[I]n reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court ‘will only reverse the determination of the trial court if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.’ ” 2 State v. Poupard, 471 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Minn.App.1991) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jordan
Minn. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
“In order to prevail in an appeal from a pretrial order, the state must show clearly and unequivocally that the district court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Jones, 518 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Minn.App.1994) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)), review denied (Minn. July 27, 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Melde
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
As a general rule, an appellate court will not reverse the determination of the district court unless " 'the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.' ” State v. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719, 722 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)). 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Myers (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
P. 28.04, subd. 1(1). "[I]n reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court `will only reverse the determination of the trial court if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.'" State v. Poupard, 471 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Minn.App.1991) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Skapyak
Minn. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Warsame
Minn. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Barrett
Minn. · 2005 · confidence medium
Minn.Stat. § 632.12 (1967); State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977); State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baxter
Minn. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
In reviewing pretrial prosecution appeals, this court will reverse the district court’s determination only if the state can clearly and unequivocally demonstrate “that the [district] court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Miller
Minn. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kromah
Minn. · 2003 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Richardson
Minn. · 2001 · confidence medium
State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992); State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner
Minn. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Normally, [an appellate] court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the trial court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Robb
Minn. · 2000 · confidence medium
We will not overturn a pretrial order of the district court unless “the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Peralta
Minn. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Both parties agree the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. *701 Generally, this court will only reverse a trial court’s pretrial decision to suppress evidence if the state demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d at 221 (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Welfare of L.E.P.
Minn. · 1999 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Shellito
Minn. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS Standard of Review To prevail on a pretrial appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal prosecution, the state must establish ‘clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial’ However, when reviewing a pretrial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court’s decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Aubid
Minn. · 1999 · confidence medium
State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.1987) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Miller
Minn. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scott (2×)
Minn. · 1998 · confidence medium
In Zanter , we changed the sequence that we had used to address these issues from that used in State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977) and State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Minn.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lee (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Edrozo (2×)
Minn. · 1998 · confidence medium
Critical impact In a pretrial appeal of an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case, we will reverse the determination of the trial court only “if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Edrozo
Minn. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Kim, 398 N.W.2d at 551 (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kahn (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Eggler, 372 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. Sept. 19, 1985) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fiebke
Minn. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Pike
Minn. · 1996 · confidence medium
In an appeal of a pretrial ruling suppressing evidence, this court will only reverse the district court if the state demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Paul (2×)
Minn. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Pike
Minn. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.1987); State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Roers
Minn. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jones
Minn. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Plummer
Minn. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In most instances the proper standard of review upon appeal by the state of a pretrial order in a criminal matter is to determine whether the state has demonstrated “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact *38 on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Blacksten
Minn. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wold
Minn. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Alt
Minn. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tilleskjor (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Blacksten
Minn. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Othoudt
Minn. · 1992 · confidence medium
Normally, this court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the trial court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ault (4×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State, City of St. Paul v. Lynch (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.1987) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hookom
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scott
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Doughty (2×)
Minn. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Montjoy, 366 N.W.2d 103, 107 (Minn. 1985); State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977). [3] The state's arguments at the Rasmussen hearing and in its brief focused on the inevitable discovery doctrine perhaps because of the trial court's statement that counsel direct their arguments at the Rasmussen hearing to whether the evidence was inevitably discovered.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Poupard
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Alt
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Othoudt
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Eisenbacher, 368 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Minn.App.1985) (quoting State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977) (emphasis added)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Welfare of R.A.V.
Minn. · 1991 · confidence medium
In order to prevail, the City must demonstrate “clearly and unequivocally, first, that the trial court erred in its judgment and, second, that unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.1987) (citing State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn.1977)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Minnesota, Appellant,
v.
Bruce J. WEBBER, Respondent
48356.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec 5, 1977.
262 N.W.2d 157
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Gary Hansen, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Julius E. Gernes, County Atty., Winona, for appellant., Steven H. Goldberg, Winona, for respondent.
Sheran.
Cited by 143 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

1. This matter came on for a hearing before this court sitting en banc on December 1, 1977, upon the appeal by the state pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, from an Omnibus Hearing Order issued by the Honorable Glenn E. Kelley, District Court Judge, Third Judicial District, on November 15, 1977.

2. The state appeals only from those portions of the Order suppressing any testimony concerning the identification of the defendant by Raymond Riniker made either at the physical line-up or thereafter and the statements of Donald Howard to Raymond Riniker on August 23, 1977.

3. The state petitions this court to reverse these two rulings of the district court.

4. It is the judgment of this court that the state has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the Omnibus Hearing Order should be reversed.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the state’s plea for reversal is denied.

BY THE COURT:

(s) Robert J. Sheran Chief Justice

MEMORANDUM

This matter comes before the court on appeal by the state from certain portions of an Omnibus Hearing Order issued by the Honorable Glenn E. Kelley, District Court Judge, Third Judicial District on November 15, 1977. The state filed its appeal on November 16, 1977, and a hearing was held on[*159] December 1, 1977, before the court sitting en banc.

The situation presented by this appeal is somewhat unusual in that the jury has already been selected and the trial judge will begin receiving evidence today in defendant’s trial for murder in the first degree and conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. Although we suggested to the parties that a stay of the proceedings be entered pending our resolution of the issues presented by this appeal, the state has declined to accept our suggestion and plans to proceed with the trial on schedule. For this reason, it is imperative that we issue our ruling immediately.

This appeal by the state is taken pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits “the prosecuting authority [to] appeal to the supreme court * * * in any felony * * case, as of right, from any pretrial order of the district court * * *.” Judge Kelley’s Omnibus Hearing Order is thus an appealable order under Rule 29.03, subd. 1.

Prior to the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the burden of proof that the state was required to sustain in an appeal from an order suppressing a confession or admission was governed by Minn.St. 632.12. That section required the state to accompany its appeal with a statement:

“asserting that the deprivation of the use of * * * a confession or admission ordered to be suppressed has rendered the proof available to the state with respect to the criminal charges filed by the court, (1) insufficient as a matter of law, or (2) so weak in its entirety that any possibility of prosecuting such charge to a conviction has been effectively destroyed.”

Although this section referred only to confessions and admissions and was superseded by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, we believe that it provides a meaningful standard against which to measure the degree of harm to the state that will result from the suppression of evidence ordered after an Omnibus Hearing.

Accordingly, we hold that when an appeal is taken by the state pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, this court will only reverse the determination of the trial court if the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. In our judgment, appellant has not sustained its burden in this case, and we therefore decline to reverse.

It should not be assumed that the refusal of this court to grant appellant’s plea for reversal of certain portions of the Omnibus Hearing Order is the equivalent of an affirmance of that order or an acceptance of the reasoning upon which the decision is based. Thus, the trial court is free to reconsider its rulings upon proper application of the parties made at an appropriate time during the course of the trial. To say that the trial court has this authority, however, is not to suggest necessarily that it should be utilized; rather, the statement is included here merely to emphasize the limited scope of our decision in this case.