Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645.

278 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment of a defendant is reviewed under a clear abuse of discretion standard.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Allison Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Allison Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[a] witness who is alleged to have committed the crime instead of the defendant is, as a matter of law, not an accomplice.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When evaluating whether prior convictions are admissible for impeachment, a -38 (Minn. 1978).”
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.” d 645, 659 (Minn. 2006) (noting that the fact-finder can infer intent from the “defendant’s flight from the scene of the crime with the principal”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.” (noting that the fact-finder can infer intent from the “defendant’s flight from the scene of the crime with the principal” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Swanson, the supreme court held that the statement “[t]he state believes [the witness] is very believable” was “impermissible vouching on its face because the state directly endorsed the credibility of [the] witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 645, 655-56 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that arguments that a witness was “very believable” appear to vouch for that witness’s credibility).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ralph Magnuson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ralph Magnuson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A conviction will be reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct “only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired 2 the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Montalvo Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Montalvo Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-58 (Minn. 2006), the supreme court considered whether the prosecutor’s remarks regarding the defendant’s ability to tailor his testimony after listening to the other witnesses constituted misconduct.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A prosecutor “cannot use a defendant’s exercise of his right of confrontation to impeach the credibility of his testimony, at least in the absence of evidence that the defendant has tailored his testimony to fit the state’s case.” -58 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]e reverse only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the [appellant’s] right to a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
was substantial and compelling and included his admission that he had shot Allan and Morocho during an attempt to rob them.”); (“[T]he state’s case against Dobbins was very strong, and the evidence, both in the form of witness testimony and forensic evidence, overwhelmingly indicates that Dobbins shot and killed Lavender.”); (“[T]he state’s case was very strong.
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A 6 district court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment of a defendant is reviewed under a clear abuse of discretion standard.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 An accomplice is generally “one who could have been charged with and convicted of the crime with which the [defendant] is charged.”
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court “should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.”