Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thomas, 232 N.W.2d 766.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
produce evidence equally available to both sides.” d, 707 717 (Minn. 1978); -71 (Minn. App. 2004) (“The district court has the authority to order defense counsel to refrain from commenting on the prosecutor’s failure to call a witness if the witnesses are equally available to both parties.”) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court reversed and granted a new trial, concluding that the prosecutor’s statements, in conjunction with “the wrongful admission of hearsay evidence,” were grounds for a new State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 515-16
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 515- 16, (stating that when a prosecutor plans to use a questionable statement in argument, the statement “should first be discussed in chambers with the [district court] so that the [district court] may exercise [its] discretion as to whether such a statement should be included”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 517
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 517
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 516
State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513
State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
See State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 517
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 517
State v. Callahan 310 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1981
State v. Callahan 310 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1981
Cf., State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513 , for closing argument standards applicable to prosecution and defense.
State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
In State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513 , this court suggested that a trial court had the authority to order defense counsel to refrain from commenting on a prosecutor’s failure to call a witness.
State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
5 It should be noted that subsequent to the trial of this case, State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513 , recommended a set of prophylactic procedures to avoid the situation presented here.
State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
This court’s recent decision in State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513 , makes it clear that prosecutors should *379 first obtain the trial court’s permission before arguing that the state has attempted to avoid duplication in calling witnesses.
State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
See, State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513
State v. Dillard 238 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1976
Followed State v. Dillard 238 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1976
We reiterate what we said in State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513, 515 , : “We adhere to our decision in Shupe [State v. Shupe, 293 Minn. 396 , ] that there may be circumstances in which it is prejudicial error for the prosecutor to state that he has failed to call witnesses who would, in effect, support the testimony of other witne
State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
See, also, State v. Thomas, 305 Minn. 513