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. Underwood, 281 N.W.2d 337.

104 citing documents.

  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (holding that, in sexual-assault trial, prosecutor permitted to use extrinsic evidence of prior sexual assault involving defendant and girlfriend on cross-examination to show bias of defendant’s girlfriend due to her sexual relationship with defen
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
    To avoid the problem occasioned by unsolicited references to a defendant’s exercise of his constitutional rights, “the state has a duty to properly prepare its own witnesses prior to trial.”
  • State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (reversing based on cumulative effect of errors).
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
    “If the jury acted with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the necessity of overcoming it with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this court should not disturb its verdict.”
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
    “If the jury acted with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the necessity of overcoming it with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this court should not disturb its verdict.”
  • State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Distinguished State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    (comment by prosecution witness on defendant’s right to remain silent was held to be prejudicial error although elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination; cumulative effect of errors warranted reversal).
  • State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
  • Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    where this court struck down a jury instruction which stated: “Except as otherwise provided by law, in every criminal proceeding, a person is presumed to be responsible for his acts and the burden of rebutting such a presumption is upon him.” Id.
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. *228 Caldwell, (appellant did not receive a fair trial because the jury heard false testimony of a highly incriminating nature); (cumulative effect of errs required reversal).
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    to support his claim of prejudicial error.
  • In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -44 (Minn.1979); State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292-93 , -84 (1971).
  • State v. Turner 359 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Turner 359 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
    (holding, in a case in which there was strong evidence of self defense, *24 that prosecutor’s elicitation of such evidence was prejudicial).
  • State v. Fuller 350 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Fuller 350 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    the Minnesota Supreme Court held questioning on a similar topic constituted reversible error.
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
    appellant claims the cumulative effect of alleged *334 incompetence of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal and a new trial.
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
    we reversed an aggravated assault conviction because the prosecutor improperly and over defense objection cross-examined the defendant about the fact that the gun he used was unregistered and the fact that it was a gross misdemeanor to possess it without a permit.