State v. Helenbolt

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Helenbolt

280 N.W.2d 631, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1582

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 7, 1979·No. 49956·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a pretrial appeal by the state pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, from an order of the district court denying a motion by the state to compel testimony by defendant’s alleged accomplice at defendant’s trial without granting the accomplice immunity from prosecution. The defendant, in a motion to dismiss, argues that the state has failed to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred in its decision and that the court’s ruling will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. Although we deny the motion to dismiss, we agree that the state has not met its burden of demonstrating error, and accordingly we affirm. See, State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn.1977).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a pretrial appeal by the state pursuant to Rule 29.03, subd. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, from an order of the district court denying a motion by the state to compel testimony by defendant’s alleged accomplice at defendant’s trial without granting the accomplice immunity from prosecution. The defendant, in a motion to dismiss, argues that the state has failed to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that the trial court erred in its decision and that the court’s ruling will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial. Although we deny the motion to dismiss, we agree that the state has not met its burden of demonstrating error, and accordingly we affirm. See, State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn.1977).

Affirmed.

State v. Helenbolt, 280 N.W.2d 631, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1582 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

280 N.W.2d 631 (State v. Helenbolt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related