Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clark, 296 N.W.2d 372.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Threinen , (argued misconduct for prosecutor to suggest that “jur y represented the people of the community and that their verdict would determine what kind of conduc t would be tolerated on the streets”); State v. Clark , (argued misconduct for prosecutor to suggest that jury “should convict the defendant because of the crime problem in general, as opposed to his indivi dual guilt based on the evidence”); -70 (Minn. 1971) (argue d misconduct for prosecutor to refer to “breakdown
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(determining that improper suggestions to the jury that they should convict a defendant “because of the crime problem in general” constitutes misconduct).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Since the defendant waived the privilege in the prior proceeding by failing to object, and the information was made public, there remains no ‘confidence’ to protect no[r] purpose to serve by exclusion of the same evidence in the current proceeding.”).
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that information, once made public, loses its privileged character).
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
See, (holding that it was improper for prosecutor to suggest that the defendant should be convicted because of the crime problem in general).
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
of Minnesota, (attorney-client privilege); (medical privilege); (marital-communications privilege); In re Swenson, 183 Minn. 602, 603 , 237 N.W.
State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
at 14 , d at 581 ; (holding that a prosecutor’s argument appealing to the crime problem in general as opposed to individual guilt is improper).
State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
This court has previously considered the policies underlying the marital communication privilege in another first degree murder case, State v. Clark (Clark II), -76 (Minn.1980).
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(disapproving of argument that suggested the jury keep the crime problem in mind in determining the question of defendant’s guilt).
State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
See, (disapproving statement in closing argument that jury represents the people of the community and that the verdict would determine what kind of conduct would be tolerated on the streets); (disapproving of argument that suggested jury should keep the crime problem in mind in determining the issue of defendant’s guilt); and State v. Clark, 291 Minn. 79, 82 , (disapproving of closing argument with “law and order” theme).
State v. Wiplinger 343 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1984
State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
State v. Thompson 306 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1981
State v. Thompson 306 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1981
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123