Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304.
- State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. McClenton
781 N.W.2d 181
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Generally, evidentiary rulings lie within the sound discretion of the district court “and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
- State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
- State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
- State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
- State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
- State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Sanders
775 N.W.2d 883
Minn. 2009
(explaining that the erroneously admitted lab report impacted the verdict in part because the State presented the report as definitive evidence that the substance possessed by the defendant was cocaine); (explaining that the erroneously admitted evidenc
- State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
- State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
- State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
- State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
- State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Tscheu
758 N.W.2d 849
Minn. 2008
-10 (Minn.2006) (finding that a BCA report prepared for litigation was testimonial).
- State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Johnson
756 N.W.2d 883
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
in which the supreme court held that a BCA laboratory report identifying a substance as cocaine was testimonial.
- El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
-
El-Shabazz v. State
754 N.W.2d 370
Minn. 2008
*376 El-Shabazz claims that two cases, continued to develop the new rule, thereby postdating his earlier petitions.
- State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
- State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
- State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Wren
738 N.W.2d 378
Minn. 2007
(concluding the admission of evidence in violation of defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights was not harmless error).
- State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
- State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
- State v. Warsame 735 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2007
- State v. Warsame 735 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2007
- State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 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
Ferguson argues that we should apply the rigorous, -16 (Minn.2006).
- State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
- State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
- State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006