Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272.

84 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 272, 280 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When read in context, the prosecutor’s comments “appear[] to be that the state had produced sufficient evidence of [appellant’s] guilt to overcome the presumption of innocence, not that he was not entitled to the presumption in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” -81 (Minn.2006).
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that Minn.Stat.
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Explained State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
But the prosecutor’s which we held did not improperly misstate the burden of proof.
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
When determining whether a photographic lineup was unnecessarily suggestive, we inquire “whether the procedure used by the police influenced the witness identification of the defendant.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
see also 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.02 (2006) (“The defendant is presumed innocent of the charge made.
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The state’s closing argument “ ‘must be based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.’ ” ().
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
(quotation marks omitted).
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that closing argument must be based on evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence, but need not be colorless).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by