DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

327 citing documents.

  • State v. Gravley 359 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Gravley 359 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Mildenstein 358 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Mildenstein 358 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Under the standards set out in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , we find no reversible error since the comment did not likely play a substantial part in influencing the jury.
  • State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    (2) Prosecutors may argue that a “phantom attacker” does not exist; (3) Even if the comments could be interpreted as an implication that defendant failed to call “Jubriel,” under the standards set out in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , no reversible error occurred.
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-128
  • State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Under the standards for reviewing prosecutor misconduct set forth in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , however, we believe the comment was harmless error.
  • State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Moreover, under the tests set out in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , we believe that any misconduct here was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence and the brief nature of the objectionable comments.
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The test for prosecutorial misconduct is set out in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , : The test of determining whether prosecu-torial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    This single error was unlikely to have “played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The improper argument was also harmless under the standards for review of a prosecutor’s misconduct, set forth in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , : The test of determining whether prosecu-torial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Minnesota Supreme Court said in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, 128 , : The test of determining whether prosecu-torial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
  • State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
    As we indicated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , the more serious the misconduct, the more inclined we will be to conclude that the misconduct influenced the jury in reaching the guilty verdict.
  • State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
    The standard of review was stated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , : The test of determining whether prose-cutorial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
  • State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127
  • State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128
  • State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
    In State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , we defined the test for prosecutorial misconduct as follows: The test of determining whether prosecu-torial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
  • State v. Thompson 306 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Thompson 306 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1981
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1980
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Tungland 281 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Tungland 281 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1979
    See, e. g., State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    Cf., State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
  • State v. Carlson 267 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1978
  • Followed State v. Carlson 267 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1978
    In accordance with our decision in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , we observe that no objection or request for curative instructions was made by defense counsel.
  • State v. Billups 264 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1978