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. Zernechel, 304 N.W.2d 365.

38 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See, e.g., State v. Zernechel , (holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain second-degree cr iminal-sexual-conduct conviction—fear of imminent great bodily harm, when female tenant awoke during sexual assault by neighbor).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
    (affirming conviction when victim immediately recognized her attacker as former tenant of apartment building); (holding that identification of defendant was sufficient when victim instantly recognized defendant as someone she had seen numerous times in sm
  • Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
  • Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
  • Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
  • Roby v. State 531 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1995
    Generally, a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the reviewing court does not "have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.”
  • State v. McCloskey 453 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1990
  • State v. McCloskey 453 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Strodtman 399 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Strodtman 399 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Garasha v. State 393 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Garasha v. State 393 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hanson 366 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hanson 366 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Tienter 338 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Tienter 338 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1983
    : Generally, an appeal from a judgment of conviction, such as this, is not the most appropriate way of raising an issue concerning the effectiveness of the trial counsel’s representation because we do not have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
    Cases of this court in which the defendant has made an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence that the victim was in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm include:
  • State v. Lehmann 331 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Lehmann 331 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1983
    “Generally, an appeal from a judgment of conviction, such as this, is not the most appropriate way of raising an issue concerning the effectiveness of the trial counsel’s representation because we do not have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things
  • Zernechel v. State 324 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 324 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 324 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
    Cases decided under subsection (c)