Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brouillette, 286 N.W.2d 702.
- State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Amos
347 N.W.2d 498
Minn. 1984
State v. *503 Brouillette
- State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
- State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
- Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
- State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
- State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Lloyd
345 N.W.2d 240
Minn. 1984
We must uphold the trial court’s ruling “unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.”
- State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Gissendanner
343 N.W.2d 668
Minn. 1984
Defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying a motion to bar the state from impeaching him with a prior rape conviction if he testified is controlled by prior decisions of this court
- Hanson v. State 344 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
Hanson v. State
344 N.W.2d 420
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in receiving evidence of defendant’s prior crimes where the jury was directed “to consider the prior conviction only as it relates to defendant’s credibility.” d at 708 .
- State v. Reinke 343 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Reinke
343 N.W.2d 660
Minn. 1984
as, Defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion to bar use of his prior conviction (a 1978 conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree) to impeach his credibility when he testified is answered by pri- or decisions
- State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
- State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
- State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
- State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
- State v. Carlson 328 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Carlson
328 N.W.2d 690
Minn. 1982
we stated our disapproval of such verdict forms, we upheld the conviction because — as in this case — the instructions as a whole were not confusing where the trial court had twice correctly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and that the state had the burden of proving defendant’s guilt
- State v. Johnson 324 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Johnson
324 N.W.2d 199
Minn. 1982
Brouillette v. Wood, 636 F.2d 215 (8th Cir.1980), ce rt.
- State v. Schmieg 322 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1982
- State v. Schmieg 322 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1982
- State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Caldwell
322 N.W.2d 574
Minn. 1982
we held that the use of the very same verdict form, along with the court’s statement that the function of the jury was to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence, did not justify reversal of the defendant’s conviction because the defendant did not object to the alleged misstatements at the time they
- State v. Erickson 313 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1981
-
State v. Erickson
313 N.W.2d 16
Minn. 1981
Decisions of this court which particularly support the trial court’s
- State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
- State v. Lloyd 310 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1981
-
State v. Lloyd
310 N.W.2d 463
Minn. 1981
However, we caution against the use of such language.
- State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
- State v. Ware 306 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1981
-
State v. Ware
306 N.W.2d 879
Minn. 1981
and other cases, the trial court did not err in its ruling.
- State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981
- State v. Upton 306 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1981
- State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981
- State v. Upton 306 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1981
- State v. Bellcourt 305 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1981
- State v. Bellcourt 305 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1981
- State v. Kvale 302 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
- State v. Kvale 302 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
- State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
- State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
- State v. St. John 299 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
- State v. St. John 299 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
- State v. Bauer 299 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1980
- State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980