Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Currie, 126 N.W.2d 389.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Cross-Examination “A new trial may be required for prosecutorial misconduct where the state asks questions which by innuendo may lead to a prejudicial supposition as to the existence of 15 facts that cannot be proved.” –46 (Minn. App. 1993) (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Martell Antonio Bloxson, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We have made it clear that "[t]he state will not be permitted to 'deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendos which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible."' State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157, (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301, 12 ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
While the prosecutor’s questions about Haukoos’s communication skills was an indirect way of making the point that Haukoos chose not to sp eak with law enforcement, the state is not permitted to make “insinuations and innuendos which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of ev idence which is otherwise inadmissible.” State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 n.1, 306, n.1, 398 (1964) (concluding, as to statutory abandonment defense to accomplice liability, that “once the state has established a prima facie case [of accomplice liability], the burden rests on the defendant of going forward with the evidence of withdrawal to a point where it can
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Under [appellate court] decisions, the defendant need not prove an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Currie , 267 Minn. 294, 306, (footnote omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The next case Fleming relies on is State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, (1964).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
404(a)(1); State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301
State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
9 We have made it clear that “[t]he state will not be permitted to ‘deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendos which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.’ ” State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157 , (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 , ).
State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157 , (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 , ).
State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 306-07
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 302
State v. Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1984
State v. Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1984
See State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
City of St. Paul v. DiBucci 229 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1975
City of St. Paul v. DiBucci 229 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1975
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 170 Minn. 250 , 212 N.W.
State v. Michaelson 214 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
State v. Michaelson 214 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
See, State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 .” See, also, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , *128 (1965); State v. Huffstutter, 269 Minn. 153 , State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
State v. Reed 192 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1971
State v. Reed 192 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1971
3; State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
State v. Hansen 188 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1971
State v. Hansen 188 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1971
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 306 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389, 398 .
State v. Bond 173 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1969
State v. Bond 173 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1969
State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , .
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
595.07; State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 .
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
The state will not be permitted to “deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendoes which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.” State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389, 395 .
State v. Baynes 157 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1968
State v. Baynes 157 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1968
See, State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 .
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
Defendant cites State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 , in support of his contentions.
Reese v. Ross & Ross Auctioneers, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1967
Reese v. Ross & Ross Auctioneers, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1967
Co. 233 Minn. 93 , 46 N. W. (2d) 266 ; Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 238 Minn. 322 , 56 N. W. (2d) 655 ; Maher v. Roisner, 239 Minn. 115 , 57 N. W. (2d) 810 , 37 A. L. R. (2d) 658; Pelzer v. Lange, 254 Minn. 46 , 93 N. W. (2d) 666 ; State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 ; New York Cent.
State v. Biehoffer 129 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1964
State v. Biehoffer 129 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1964
The authorities are reviewed in State v. Cur-rie, 267 Minn. 294 , 126 N. W. (2d) 389 , where a new trial was granted because of the prejudice created in that case by questions which embodied a testimonial assertion that defendant had been previously arrested.
State v. Mathiasen 127 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964