Cited by

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

131 citing documents.

State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
We have addressed the use of gang expert testimony in five recent cases:
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
-65 (Minn.2005) (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct.
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-39 (Minn.2007); -73 (Minn.2005); , 611—13 (Minn.2003).
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
-65 (Minn.2005) (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct.
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
We have considered the admissibility of gang expert testimony in four recent cases:
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Analysis of the performance prong generally “does not include reviewing attacks on counsel’s trial strategy,” because trial strategy lies within the discretion of trial counsel.
Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
It is misconduct for a prosecutor to state his personal opinion in his argument to the - jury because of the potential for “exploitation of the influence of the prosecutor’s office.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
An error is harmless if the jury’s verdict was “surely not attributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).