Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 5/31/2011

State v. Hahn

Citations

799 N.W.2d 25
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 60
2011 WL 2119333

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting pornographic photographs even though a witness could have testified to their existence
concluding that the second Barker factor weighed against the defendant because of his motions and “various requests for continuances and postponements”
providing that “[d]elays caused by defense motions generally weigh against the defendant”
“[An] administrative delay, by itself, is generally insufficient to violate a defendant’s speedy-trial right in the absence of a deliberate attempt to delay trial.”
“[A] delay of 14 more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”
“The responsibility for promptly bringing a case to trial rests with the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Halbrooks, Schellhas, Shumaker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.