Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414.

320 citing documents.

Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
-24 (Minn.2004) (explaining that the postconviction court erred “[b]y concluding that the recantations were unreliable without first evaluating the credibility of the witnesses at an evidentiary hearing”).
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
-24 (Minn.2004) (concluding that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it misapplied MinmStat.
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
Specifically, in State v. Ferguson, we said that “to justify the expense and risk of transporting the petitioner to an evidentiary hearing, it seems to us that the petitioner has an obligation to make a greater showing of a genuine recantation.”
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
(concluding that the postconviction court abused its discretion in concluding that the jury would have reached the same verdict without recanted testimony, where there was no physical evidence that tied the petitioner to the murder).
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
We have “interpreted this section to require the petitioner to allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him to the requested relief.”
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
trial based on recanted testimony, the postconviction court should consider three factors: (1) whether the court is “reasonably well-satisfied” that the trial testimony was false; (2) whether “without that testimony the jury might have reached a different conclusion”; and (3) whether “the petitioner was taken by surprise at trial or did not know of the falsity until after trial.”
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(discussing the reluctance of appellate courts to second-guess trial strategy, including what investigation to undertake).
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
at 226-27 (quoting Opsahl v. State (Opsahl I), (emphasis added)).
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
19(6), and to obtain a Schwartz hearing, the defense has the “burden of adducing ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’” ()
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Opsahl v. State (Opsahl I)
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007