Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Blanche, 696 N.W.2d 351.

131 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” –65 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
-79 (Minn. 2005) (stating that certain facts cannot be used to support a departure, including facts necessary to prove elements of the offense for which a sentence is imposed).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
But we have cautioned that “district courts should exercise caution in admitting gang-expert testimony because of the potential for such experts to unduly influence the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Witness credibility determinations are strictly the domain of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Dario Jothzan Abla-Salmeron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dario Jothzan Abla-Salmeron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The erroneous admission of expert testimony requires reversal “only when the error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Tscheu, d at 863 (involving a case in which the law had not changed during the pendency of the appeal); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In reviewing a joinder issue, this court conducts “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
-79 (Minn.2005) (“The reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.”)
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
379 (Minn.2005), we held that consecutive sentencing of conspiracy and first-degree murder convictions did not exaggerate the defendant’s criminality given the presence of several factors: (1) the existence of multiple victims, both intended (Scott) and unintended (Phillips); (2) Phillips’ vulnerability and comp
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
Review of joinder decisions requires “an independent inquiry into [whether] any substantial prejudice to defendants may have resulted from the joinder.” ().
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
374 (Minn.2005) (disapproving of gang expert testimony that gang members sho[o]t at each other, gang members have to retaliate, and that gang members are not cooperative with the police.).
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
(holding that to be a "proper departure,” " ’[t]he reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.’ ” (-79 (Minn.2005))).
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(alteration in original) (-79 (Minn.2005)).
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
377 n. 10 (Minn.2005); see also Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
(affirming sentencing departure when, in an attempt to assassinate a rival gang member, ten bullets were indiscriminately fired in a residential area and a particularly vulnerable child was *361 shot to death while playing on a friend’s front porch).
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
3 Among the boundaries identified for proper departure is that “[t]he reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.” -79 (Minn.2005) (-24 (Minn. 2002)); (holding that elements of lesser-included offenses “cannot support upward sentencing departures”).
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
In order to establish step one, a prima facie case under Batson , the opponent of a peremptory challenge must show “(1) that a member of a protected racial group has been peremptorily excluded from the jury and (2) that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by