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 v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
    The determination of whether this court will grant a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct “is governed by no fixed rules but rests within the discretion of the trial judge, who is in the best position to appraise its effect.”
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence stands only when “the facts and circumstances disclosed by the circumstantial evidence 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 *320 other than that of guilt.”
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
    While prosecutors do have the right to legitimately argue, analyze, explain evi *107 dence and present proper inferences, see, they may not directly or indirectly comment on a defendant’s failure to testify.
  • State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
    Thus, in the context of the evidence as a whole, the circumstances must form a complete chain leading “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. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
    A conviction may stand where the circumstances “form a complete chain which, in the 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. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
    -28 (Minn.1994) ( and finding no prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor in closing allegedly disparaged the role of defense counsel and asserted his opinion concerning the credibility of a witness).
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    The circumstances must “form a complete chain which, in the 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. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
    The general standard for determining whether a new trial is warranted due to prosecutorial misconduct is “whether 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. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
    Thus, the circumstantial evidence must “ ‘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.’ ” Webb, d at 430 ().
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    “The conviction *370 may only stand where 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. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
    We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [s]tate and must assume that the jury believed the [sjtate’s witnesses and disbelieved everything which contradicted their testimony.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998