DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Silvers, 40 N.W.2d 630.

51 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
    Cf. State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 22 , (concluding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial when the prosecutor persistently “ask[ed] incompetent or irrelevant questions calculated to prejudice defendant in the eyes of the jury”).
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
    See State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 15
  • State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    A party’s rights are just as prejudiced “by a question asked in good faith as by one asked with a vicious purpose.” Currie , 267 Minn, at 304, d at 396 (quoting State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 22 , ).
  • State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
    1 In the past, this court has condemned questioning calculated to arouse prejudice, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , and has denounced as unprofessional interrogatories that imply a factual predicate unsupported by the evidence.
  • State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , State v. Rediker, 214 Minn. 470 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , 181 * State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
  • State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Flowers, supra; State v. Gress, supra; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12
  • State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
    In *397 State v. Reardon, 245 Minn. 509, 513 , we said: “* * * Where * * * the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” See, also, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , Chicago, M. & St.
  • State v. Henderson 185 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Henderson 185 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1971
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Fournier, 108 Minn. 402 , .
  • State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 , and State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67 , cited by appellant, hold that it is prejudicial error for a prosecutor to ask improper questions calculated to prejudice the defendant, but these cases do not apply where the prosecutor is properly commenting on the evidence.
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
    State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
  • State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
    He may do so forcefully, but as we said in State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 , it is the duty of the prosecuting attorney as well as the court to see that the accused has a fair trial.
  • State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
    Thus we have said that he must refrain from condemning the accused on the authority of the government he represents, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 , citing Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 , 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 , 79 L. ed. 1314, 1321; that he should not offer an opinion as to substantive evidence, State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; that he should understand that it is part of his duty to conduct trials with fair
  • State v. Norgaard 136 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Norgaard 136 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1965
    State v. Sanderson, 179 Minn. 436 , *52 ; State v. Glazer, 176 Minn. 442 , ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 .
  • State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
    7 State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
  • State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Rutledge, 142 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Gandel, 173 Minn. 305 , ; State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 .
  • State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
  • State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
    In State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 22 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630, 635 , we said: “* * * Good faith of the prosecuting attorney in asking improper questions is wholly irrelevant to the problem.
  • State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .
  • State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1963
    2 For recent cases involving the prejudicial effect of remarks, argument, *525 and interrogation by the prosecuting attorney, see State v. Haney, 222 Minn. 124 , 23 N. W. (2d) 369 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Morgan, 235 Minn. 388 , 51 N. W. (2d) 61 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; State v. Cole, 240 Minn. 52 , 59 N. W. (2d) 919 .
  • State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
    A leading case on this question, also involving an assault, is State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
  • State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
    4 See, also, State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Fournier, 108 Minn. 402 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn 518, 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
  • State v. Coursolle 97 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1959
  • State v. Coursolle 97 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1959
    Minn. Const, art. 1, §§ 6, 7; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Stockton, 181 Minn. 566 , .
  • State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
  • State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
    State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Clow, 215 Minn. 380 , 10 N. W. (2d) 359 ; State v. Elijah, 206 Minn. 619 , ; State v. Stockton, 181 Minn. 566 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) §§ 983, 984, 1020; 1
  • State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
  • State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
    See, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N.W.
  • State v. Morgan 51 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1952