Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caron, 218 N.W.2d 197.

328 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See [] 298, 299 n.4 [Minn. 2006] (discussing the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, and “leaving for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 150 (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, ).
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 We note, however, that the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that the two-tiered test under State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, is of questionable viability.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, ).
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
(citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, ).
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
300 Minn. 123, 127, (“[I]n cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct this court has required certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before affirming.”).
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 390 n.8 (quoting State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, ); n.2 (Minn. 2008) (“leav[ing] .
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, ), review denied (Minn. June 26, 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, ), review denied (Minn. June 26, 2013).
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is not clear that this two-tiered approach for ob-jeeted-to prosecutorial misconduct announced in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , which adopted a modified plain-error analysis for unobjected-to pros-ecutorial misconduct.
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[T]he application of [the test] varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” Carridine, d at 146 ; see State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , (setting forth a two-tiered approach to analyzing objected-to alleged prosecutorial misconduct); (stating that “[w]e have not yet decided whether this two-tiered approach set forth in Caron remains viable” (quotation omitte
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
at 298 , 299 n. 4 (discussing the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , 6 and “leaving] for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct”).
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
McDaniel, d at 749 (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
“For objeeted-to prosecutorial misconduct, we have utilized a harmless error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” (noting that it has not been determined whether the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , “should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct” ()); -74 (Minn.2005).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
394 n. 13 (Minn.2007) (concluding that the court did not need to decide whether the two-tiered standard announced in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , for determining whether objected-to prosecutorial misconduct was harmless was still viable because the misconduct was harmless under both tiers).
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
See State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123,127-28
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
Wren, d at 390 n. 8 (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
390 n. 8 (Minn.2007) (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
754 n. 2 (Minn.2008) (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
300 Minn. 123, 127-28 (1974).
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
But in two cases decided after Mayhom and Swanson, we expressly noted that the continued viability of the two-tiered approach set forth in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , for cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct remains to be decided.
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
at 299 n. 4 (discussing two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , *390 200 (1974), 8 and “leaving] for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct”); -74 (Minn.2005) (applying the Caron standard to objected-to
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
The state petitioned for review, claiming that the court of appeals erred in applying the two-tiered analysis from State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , to Ramey’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct because Ramey had not made a contemporaneous objection to the asserted misconduct.
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005