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. Jones, 152 N.W.2d 67.

41 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    that [appellant] is known to the courts for his misdeeds.” For this argument, he relies on State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 177 -78, (concluding that defendant did not have a fair trial and noting that there were “so many separate items of impropriety in the trial that it [was] impracticable to discuss them all”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    See State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 188–89, –78 (1967).
  • State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    A prosecutor “may strike hard blows, [but] he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.” State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 188, (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935)).
  • State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 180
  • State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    The witness also was asked about Reese’s conduct “during the time you have known the defendant.” In State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , the Minnesota Supreme Court granted a new trial where a trial court allowed similar testimony.
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “The duty of the prosecutor is to present the case fairly and argue it fairly.” State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 188
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
    State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174
  • Bergemann v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 270 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1978
  • Bergemann v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 270 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1978
    “ * * * [W]here a jury has found negligence, it becomes our duty to hold as a matter of law that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury where, in our opinion, reasonable men can come to no other conclusion.” 277 Minn. 156 , .
  • State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
  • Criticized State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
    In State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , this court reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial when the prosecution argued to the jury that a codefend-ant’s refusal to deny that the defendant was his accomplice was an indication of the defendant’s guilt.
  • 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. Seelye 209 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1973
  • Distinguished State v. Seelye 209 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1973
    Our case is thus easily distinguishable from State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , where the prosecutor deliberately tried to elicit such testimony from a defense witness.
  • Ralph Hegman Company v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 198 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
  • Ralph Hegman Company v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 198 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , and cases cited therein.
  • 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. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
    Cole v. State, 289 Minn. 503 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , State v. Quinn, 186 Minn. 242 , State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216
  • Cole v. State 183 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1971
  • Cole v. State 183 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1971
    State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 26 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155, 159 ; State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 189 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67, 78 .
  • 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. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
    State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67 (failure to instruct that testimony of accomplice needs corroboration); State v. Tellock, 273 Minn. 512 , 142 N. W. (2d) 64 ; State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 (failure to instruct that prior convictions can be used only to impeach a witness); State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N.
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
    State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , 153 N. W. (2d) 67 .
  • State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
    It seems that this point is controlled by State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67 , where we held that, in the absence of a request, failure of the court to instruct the jury that a codefendant who had entered a plea of guilty was an accomplice as a matter of law, and that his testimony required corroboration, was not reversible error.
  • Rotering v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1967
  • Rotering v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1967
    1 277 Minn. 174 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67 .