Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richmond, 214 N.W.2d 694.

35 citing documents.

Jeramy John Wharton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“attach[ing] importance to whether .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a prosecutor unintentionally elicits inadmissible evidence, a defendant may be entitled to a new trial if the inadmissible evidence “prejudiced the defendant’s case.” State 12 v. Richmond, .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Even if the prosecutor unintentionally elicits” inadmissible evidence, a defendant may be entitled to a new trial if the inadmissible evidence “prejudiced the defendant’s case.” State v. Richmond , 298 Minn. 561, 563, ; see also McNeil, d at 232.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Holbrook, 305 Minn. 554, 557–58, (quoting State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563, ) (while not dispositive, there is “importance to whether the prosecutor intentionally elicited” 10 prejudicial testimony).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Even if the prosecutor unintentionally elicits” inadmissible evidence, a defendant may be entitled to a new trial if the inadmissible evidence “prejudiced the defendant’s case.” State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 694, 695 (Minn. 1974).
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563, (stating that preventing “a conviction based on prejudice created by evidence of other crimes is the underlying purpose” for excluding other-crimes evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-88 (Minn. 2002); State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 562-63
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563, (“In cases involving the erroneous admission of [evidence permitting the jury to infer that defendant had a prior record], this court has attached importance to whether the prosecutor intentionally elicited such testimony.”).
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563
State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561, 563 , (court in assessing prejudice attaches some importance to whether the prosecutor intentionally elicited the reference).
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Therefore, State v. Barness, 294 Minn. 507 , and State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561 , apply.
State v. Haglund 267 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1978
State v. Haglund 267 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1978
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561 , Hamilton v. State, 293 Minn. 257 , ; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
State v. Holbrook 233 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1975
State v. Holbrook 233 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1975
In State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561 , this court dealt with a claim that the defendant should receive a new trial because the prosecutor elicited testimony from a witness that the defendant, who, as here, did not take the stand, had a prior record.