Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stofflet, 281 N.W.2d 494.

48 citing documents.

Overruled State of Minnesota v. Robert Lester Caldwell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ends that, despite the district court’s ruling, the prosecutor’s attempt to impeach Caldwell is justified by caselaw stating that a prosecutor may impeach a witness with the statement of a non - testifying third party so long as the impeachment is not “simply an attempt by the prosecutor to use innuendo.” -762 (Minn. App. 1987) (), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Glen Alvin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
One way in which a prosecutor may deprive a defendant of a fair trial is by “mak[ing] insinuations on cross-examination that the prosecutor cannot back up with admissible evidence.” -97 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota v. Rogers Kenneth Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that a prosecutor erred by addressing a witness’s prior inconsistent statements when no one had testified to them).
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
497 *296 (Minn.1979) (recognizing that allowing defendant to withhold objections and obtain new trial or acquittal based on resulting error would foster abuse of fair-trial procedures).
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[A] prosecutor should not base his argument on facts not in evidence.”
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
(noting that a juror’s false answers on voir dire in order to conceal bias may deprive defendant of a fair trial).
State v. Thames 599 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1999
State v. Thames 599 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1999
See id.; (stating that "[wjhether cross-examination concerning a prior inconsistent statement is justified turns on whether the question * ⅜ * is simply an attempt by the prosecutor to utilize innuendo”).
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
Cf., (refusing to award new trial where it was clear that a new trial would accomplish nothing) (same).
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“Whether cross-examination concerning a prior inconsistent statement is justified turns on whether the question is based on evidence or is simply an attempt by the prosecutor to utilize innuendo.”
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the prosecutor, in cross-examining a key defense witness, questioned the witness about an inconsistent statement he had made to a deputy sheriff.
State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
the issue was whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a Schwartz hearing to question one of the jurors about possible bias toward defense counsel because of a feud relating to defense counsel’s management of an amateur hockey club.
State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
If the motion is granted the jurors shall be interrogated under oath and their testimony recorded.” The Minnesota Supreme Court in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , -25 (1971) stated that “the trial courts * * * should be liberal in granting a [Schwartz ] hearing.” Quinn v. Winkel’s Inc.
State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
we upheld the refusal of the trial court to conduct a post-trial Schwartz hearing to examine one of the jurors about possible bias toward defense counsel because of a prior feud over defense counsel’s management of an amateur hockey club.
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
297 Minn. at 24 , d at 911 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Mings 289 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1980
State v. Mings 289 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1980

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by