Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Palubicki, 700 N.W.2d 476.

121 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether a discovery violation occurred is an issue of law which this court reviews de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A new trial will only be granted based on objected-to prosecutorial misconduct if the misconduct, “viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.” State v. Palubicki , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A new trial will only be granted based on objected-to prosecutorial misconduct if the misconduct, “viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.” State v. Palubicki , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 “Whether a discovery violation occurred is an issue of law which this court reviews de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 “Whether a discovery violation occurred is an issue of law which this court reviews de novo.” State v. Palubicki
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Whether a discovery violation occurred is an issue of law which this court reviews de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 476, 489 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, the state’s violation of a discovery rule will not result in a new trial”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, appellant does not contend that the prosecutor’s alleged delay caused him any 10 prejudice, and “[g]enerally, without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, the state’s violation of a discovery rule will not result in a new trial.” d 476, 489 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; (noting mandatory language of rule directives).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
(citing State v. 23 Palubicki, ).
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether a discovery violation occurred is an issue of law which this court reviews de novo.”
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The decision to give a requested jury instruction lies in the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The burden of proving the applicability of the marital privilege rests on the spouse who invokes the privilege.”
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009