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. Schwartz, 122 N.W.2d 769.

37 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    We further c onsider a prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole to ensure that no single wo rd or phrase is “taken out of context and used as a basis for reversal.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    In addition, because the e rrors Nowels alleges are in the prosecutor’s closing argument, this court considers the argument as a whole to ensure that no single word or phrase is “taken out of context and used as a basis for reversal.” State v. Schwartz
  • State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
  • Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
  • Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
    See State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 113-114 , -776 (1963) (holding that a combination of errors at trial required granting defendant a new trial).
  • State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
    d *631 186, 187-88 (Minn.1979); State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35, 49 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 111
  • State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 111 , State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35, 49
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
    State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104
  • State v. Schallock 281 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Schallock 281 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1979
    The cases cited by the parties—see, State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , —make it clear that *188 it was inappropriate for the patrolman to sit at the counsel table during trial.
  • State v. Willis 269 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Willis 269 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
    State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104
  • Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
  • Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
    Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , Fjell-man v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , State v. Dahlgren, 259 Minn. 307 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 346
  • State v. Williams 210 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Williams 210 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1973
    10 State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104
  • State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
    “An expert may give his opinion if based upon a factual foundation supported by the evidence, even though it directly bears on the issue to be determined by the jury.” Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505, 513 , State v. McCarthy, 259 Minn. 24 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104
  • State v. Prettyman 198 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Prettyman 198 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508
  • State v. Maki 192 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Maki 192 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1971
    State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State ex rel.
  • State v. Zaccardi 159 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Zaccardi 159 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1968
    Even an immoral woman has some freedom of selection, and consent obtained from such a woman by a stunning blow on the jaw is no consent at all.” In asserting that it was error to permit evidence of seminal stains, defendant relies on State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 112 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769, 774 .
  • State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
    See, also, State v. Cole, 240 Minn. 52 , 59 N. W. (2d) 919 ; State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N. W. (2d )769.
  • State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
    See, also, State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769 ; State v. Turnbull, 267 Minn. 428 , 127 N. W. (2d) 157 .
  • State v. Anderson 137 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Anderson 137 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1965
    State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104, 113 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769, 775 .
  • State v. Bailey 132 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Bailey 132 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1965
    See, United States v. Graham (2 Cir.) 102 F. (2d) 436, certiorari denied, 307 U. S. 643 , 59 S. Ct. 1041 , 83 L. ed. 1524; Ellis v. United States (8 Cir.) 138 F. (2d) 612; Weaver v. United States (9 Cir.) 216 F. (2d) 23; Stevens v. United States (9 Cir.) 256 F. (2d) 619; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769 .
  • State v. Biehoffer 129 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Biehoffer 129 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1964
    As noted in State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769 , it is inappropriate for the county sheriff who investigated the case to be present at the prosecuting counsel’s table during the trial.