DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408.

369 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    During closing argument, the prosecutor has “the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    A prosecutor has the “right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (noting that prosecutor has the “right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom”).
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
    (rejecting defendant's argument that "putting the burden on the defendant to show that his intoxication negated the intent to commit the crime[ ] violates due process"); City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462, 472 , (“In the case of voluntary intoxication, the defenda
  • Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
    The existence of premeditation is generally “inferred from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” ().
  • State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
    But we have also said that the State “need not make [its] argument entirely colorless and may state conclusions and inferences which the human mind may reasonably draw from the facts in evidence.” State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511 , (“Counsel have the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”).
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
    Nonetheless, a defendant has the right to make all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to explain the evidence, and to “present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “Counsel have the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    During closing argument, the prosecutor has “the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence stands only when the circumstances form “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.”
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
    However, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence will stand only if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” -20 (Minn.2005) ().
  • State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
    Third-degree murder requires that “the reckless or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons.” ().
  • State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
    (citations omitted) (emphasis added) (holding that an instruction on depraved mind murder was inappropriate where the evidence suggested “that all the blows were directed toward the victim”).
  • Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
    We will reverse the denial of a prose-cutorial-misconduct claim only when “the misconduct, viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.”
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005