State v. Helenbolt
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1984, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Schmieg (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Pelovsky (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Helenbolt (Minn. 1983)
- State v. Dilger (N.D. 1982)
- State v. Fisher (Minn. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.