DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. MacLennan, 702 N.W.2d 219.

97 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “It is well-settled that the state has a right to vigorously argue its case, but the state may not denigrate a particular type of defense.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
    “When the admissibility of evidence is challenged on appeal, we defer to the district court’s exercise of discretion in the conduct of the trial, and we will not lightly overturn a district court’s evidentiary ruling.”
  • Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
  • Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
    in reaching this conclusion.
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (stating that “while we have previously applied Frye-Mack to evidence falling into the general field of psychology, we have not applied F'rye-Mack in cases addressing the admissibility of ‘syndrome’ evidence offered to explain behavior.” (footnote omitted))
  • State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
    As such, expert testimony on BWS was “necessary to explain the complexity of [the complainant’s behavior and the reasons for her behavior.” Id.; (holding that expert testimony on battered child syndrome “may help to explain a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person” and “would be helpful to jurors struggling to discern whether elements of charged crimes have been met”).
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
    -35 (Minn.2005) (holding that evidence of battered child syndrome may help explain a phenomenon not within the understanding of an ordinary lay person, but the defendant did not establish the relevance of the expert testimony to his claim of self-defense and was properly excluded).
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
    Second, the court must determine whether the novel scientific evidence offered is shown to have foundational reliability.” () (citations omitted).
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “Under the Frye-Mack standard, a novel scientific theory may be admitted if two requirements are satisfied.”
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    But a “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
    While the state may argue that there is no merit to the particular defense, the state may not disparage the defense “either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.”
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Questions that seek to solicit answers to ultimate fact issues are also impermissible; the district court properly sustained objections to questions on RL’s belief about whether Mogler acted as a parent or her belief about his “position of authority.” (stating that witness cannot testify to ultimate fact if determination should be left to trier of fact).
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
    Under the plain error doctrine, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See, -36 (Minn.2005) (applying plain-error analysis when appellant alleged prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal); -85 (Minn.2001) (explaining that failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial waived that challenge on appeal unless the admission was plain err