Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mings, 289 N.W.2d 497.

32 citing documents.

Cedric Lamont Berry v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
(describing abuse of discretion as a “deferential standard of review”).
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Rather, Berg merely speculates what he believes the juror may have felt based on her brief statement that she “lied” and that she “didn’t agree with the end result.” See Martin, d at 226 (stating that an appellant is not entitled to a Schwartz hearing on the basis of wholly speculative allegations of misconduct without more); (holding that a Schwartz hearing was unwarranted for a claim that was wholly speculative and not based on evidence reasonably suggesting misconduct).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
14, 1999); see, (concluding that a three-foot-long board was a dangerous weapon when used to repeatedly beat the victim); State v. Moyer , (concluding that gasoline was a dangerous weapon when intentionally poured and lit in sole exit of apartment in attempt to kill occupants); (concluding that boots were a dangerous weapon when used to kick the victim repeatedly in head and chest) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
illustrate the expansive interpretation [it is] inclined to give the statute.” (concluding that an inoperable firearm fell within the definition of “dangerous weapon”); d 117, 117-18 (Minn. 1981) (pool cue); 4 (cowboy boots); -85 (Minn. 1968) (fists and feet).
Devon James Pulczinski, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (finding three-foot-long board qualified as a dangerous weapon when used to repeatedly beat victim); (holding evidence sufficient to sustain conviction when cowboy boots were used to kick victim repeatedly in the head and chest).
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
not based on any evidence reasonably suggesting that misconduct had occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(board); -18 (Minn. 1981) (pool cue); -98 (Minn. 1980) (cowboy boots); (beer bottle).
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.” (“[A] board of this nature qualifies as a dangerous weapon if so used.”); see, -18 (Minn.1981) (pool cue); (cowboy boots); State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 306-08 , -85 (1968) (fists and feet).
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
not based on any evidence reasonably suggesting that misconduct had occurred.”
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
(finding no abuse of discretion in denying a Schwartz hearing where a claim that some third party contacted one or more jurors and improperly influenced the jury verdict was “wholly speculative” and not based on evidence reasonably suggesting misconduct).
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(three-foot-long board is dangerous weapon when used to repeatedly beat victim); (gasoline is dangerous weapon when intentionally poured and lit in sole exit of apartment in attempt to kill occupants); (boot is dangerous weapon when used to kick victim repeatedly in head and chest).
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
See Born, ; reh’g denied, (Mar.
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 308 , -85 (1968); -98 (Minn.1980) (affirming conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon where defendant kicked victim around the head and chest with his cowboy boots); -54 (Minn.App.1988) (hands and feet may be dangerous weapons), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1988).
Johnson v. Ramsey County 424 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. Ramsey County 424 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
If the motion is granted the jurors shall be interrogated under oath and their testimony recorded.” The Minnesota Supreme Court in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , -25 (1971) stated that “the trial courts * * * should be liberal in granting a [Schwartz ] hearing.” Quinn v. Winkel’s Inc.
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
A prima facie case for a Schwartz hearing may be based on hearsay, as was much of the evidence submitted in these affidavits, but the case alleged may not be “wholly speculative.” See also, Olberg, 291 Minn. at 342 , d at 424 .
State v. Trott 338 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1983
State v. Trott 338 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1983
See, (gasoline); (boots); (automobile); (scissors).