Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574.

163 citing documents.

Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, ...
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
(quoting Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928)).
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
-85 (Minn.1982) (adopting by implication the Larrison test in Minnesota).
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
-91 (Minn.1982), the district court is in the best position to attempt to remedy the effects of the misconduct, and it should be given this opportunity in the first instance.
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Where it is alleged that false testimony was given at trial, -85 (Minn.1982).
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Dostal v. Curran 679 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dostal v. Curran 679 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
Cautionary instructions given by the trial court relating to allegations of misconduct are a “significant factor favoring denial of a motion for a mistrial,” and if a defendant fails to object or request cautionary instructions to the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument generally the issue cannot be raised on appeal.
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
State v. Windish 590 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1999
586 n. 9 (Minn.1982) (citations omitted).
State v. Gisege 582 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1998
State v. Gisege 582 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1998
nature that “could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence before the trial; that at the time of the trial the evidence was not within petitioner’s or his counsel’s knowl *231 edge; that the evidence is not impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and that it would probably produce a result different from or more favorable than that which actually occurred.”
Sutherlin v. State 574 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1998
Sutherlin v. State 574 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1998
-85 (Minn.1982) (citing to Larrison).
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
1(4) by providing defendant with a copy of the controlled substance testing report prepared by the state’s chemist); (stating Minn.R.Crim.P.
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See, -82, 586 (Minn.1982) (reversing homicide conviction in part because fingerprint expert’s testimony was in error).
Dziubak v. Mott 486 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wieland v. State 457 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1990
Wieland v. State 457 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1990
Parker v. State 437 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1989
Parker v. State 437 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1989
g the order denying postconviction relief, the postconviction court judge, who also presided at petitioner’s trial, stated that McCo-naughead’s testimony at the postconviction hearing was “simply too sketchy for this court to be reasonably certain it is genuine.” -13 (Minn.1988): The correct rule is, , 585 including at n. 8 (Minn.1982), that a defendant should be given a new trial on the basis of recantation of testimony by a material witness only if the trial court is reasonably satisfied that