State v. Webber
| Decision Date | 05 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 48356,48356 |
| Citation | 262 N.W.2d 157 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Bruce J. WEBBER, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
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.
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.
(s) Robert J. Sheran
(s) Chief Justice
MEMORANDUMThis 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...decisions to provide clarity in the law. This concern is not present here.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. We concluded that "our decision in Webber was not intended to, nor did it, announce a rule of deference......
-
State v. Doughty, C7-89-1934
...or clarify a prior ruling based on a party's timely motion. 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 t......
-
State v. Lugo, A15–1432.
...and remanded the case. Lugo appealed. We granted review to consider two issues.The first issue is whether our decision in State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn.1977), established a special, deferential standard of review for a district court's legal conclusions in pretrial appeals by the St......
-
State v. Gauster, No. A07-0488.
...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)). Here, because the suppression of evidence led to the dismissal of the charges against Gauster, it is not disputed that th......