Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 632.12 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1979 c 233 s 42]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1968–2009 · leading case: State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn. 1987).
State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn. 1987). “12 (1967), required that an appeal by the state of a suppression order be accompanied by 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…”
State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009). “11 authorized the State to appeal pretrial suppression orders, if the appeal met the requirements of section 632.12. The latter section required a statement on how the suppression order made the prosecution's evidence (1) insufficient as a matter of law or (2) so weak that any…”
State v. Rambahal, 751 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2008). “The critical-impact rule "originated in [ Minn. Stat. § 632.12 (1967) (requiring state to file critical impact statement with notice of appeal)] and was retained with some modifications by this court after adoption of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1998). “[5] This was the prior standard under Minn.Stat. § 632.12 (1967) (repealed 1979).”
State v. Barrett, 694 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 2005). “Minn.Stat. § 632.12 (1967); State v. Webber, 262 N.”
State v. Kim, 374 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Critical impact The Webber standard for showing critical impact was derived from the now-repealed Minn.Stat. § 632.12. That statute required the prosecution, on appeal, to show that the trial court’s ruling had left the State with evidence that was: (1) insufficient as a matter…”
State v. Lee, 376 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “The rule in Webber was derived from Minn.Stat. § 632.12 (repealed 1979). That section governed the burden of proof imposed on the state when appealing a trial court’s suppression order.”
State v. Cain, 427 N.W.2d 5 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “2d at 159 (citing repealed section 632.12). Under the former statute, a discovery order was not among the pretrial orders listed as appealable.”
State v. Mayhood, 241 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1976). “(3) From an order granting the return of property or suppressing evidence, or suppressing a confession or admission, when accompanied by a statement as provided in section 632.12.” 4 Rule 29.03, subd. 1, provides: “The prosecuting authority may appeal to the Supreme Court: 1.”
State v. Capelle, 172 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. 1969). ““(3) From an order granting the return of property or suppressing evidence, or suppressing a confession or admission, when accompanied by a statement as provided in section 632.12.” *207 There is no need to state the evidence in greater detail.”
City of St. Paul v. Hurd, 216 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1974). “(3) From an order granting the return of property or suppressing evidence, or suppressing a confession or admission, when accompanied by a statement as provided in section 632.12.” 1 Defendant contends that while § 632.”
State v. King, 156 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 1968). “11, effective July 1, 1967, provides that in criminal cases the state may appeal from an order suppressing a confession or admission when the appeal is accompanied by an averment (as provided in § 632.12) pertaining to the effect of the pretrial determination upon the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.