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. Howard, 324 N.W.2d 216.

56 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    If a juror indicates his “intention to set aside any preconceived notions, and demonstrate[s] to the satisfaction of the trial judge that [he is] able to do so, [an appellate court] will not lightly substitute its own judgment.”
  • State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
    1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), ).
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
    (quoting Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
    P. 26.02 (allowing challenge of juror for cause if the juror has a state of mind "which satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially * * *."); ("If, as here, the jurors indicate their intention to set aside any preconceived notions, and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trial judge that they are able to do so, this court will not lightly substitute its own judgment.”).
  • State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
    Although the “furtherance requirement” is broadly construed, cert.
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Logan 535 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1995
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See, (defendant talked freely after Miranda warning, requested counsel only “[n]ear the end of the * * * conversation,” when police revealed their evidence against him), cert.
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Forcier 420 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Forcier 420 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1988
    verturning a conviction and granting a new trial” and holding that the record provided by the defendant on appeal did not establish that any error was prejudicial); (avoiding deciding whether statement was obtained in violation of Miranda because it was clear that any error in admitting the defendant’s statement was nonprejudicial); -23 (Minn.1982), cert.
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Howard 373 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Howard 373 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
    nn.1983) (holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by evidence that the state’s chief witness, defendant’s accomplice, had been convicted by a different jury of burglary and acquitted of felony murder, even though that tipped off the jury in the defendant’s case that the other jury believed the accomplice’s version, namely that defendant killed the victim intentionally), cert.
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Appellant’s request for counsel was not the “clear, unequivocal kind of request required by Edwards * * cert.
  • State v. Mattson 357 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Mattson 357 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1984
    1880, 1884 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)
  • State v. Abbott 356 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Abbott 356 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1984
    1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)
  • State v. Swanson 353 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Swanson 353 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984