Cited by

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

278 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Jurors can infer the necessary intent from factors including: defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and defendant’s flight from the scene of the crime with the principal.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-56 (Minn.2006) (considering fourth and fifth Jones factors in combination).
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This court will “reverse only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
609(a) 1989 comm, cmt.; -55 (Minn.2006).
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
: “(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history, (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime ..., (4) the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” Hill, d at 653 ; (noting requirement that district courts make determination on the record).
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(reviewing Jones factors and finding harmless error after district court failed to make a record of its Jones analysis), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
Jurors can “infer the necessary intent from factors including: defendants presence at the scene of the crime, defendants close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendants lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and defendants flight from the scene of the crime with the principal.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(concluding that prosecutor’s impermissible questions and comments were harmless considering strength of state’s case and the “limited nature of the prosecutorial misconduct”).
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“An accomplice is one who could have been charged with and convicted of the crime with which the accused is charged.”
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
659 n. 4 (Minn.2006) (“Because sufficient evidence exists to uphold Swanson’s kidnapping conviction, we need not address Swanson’s claim that, because there is insufficient evidence supporting his kidnapping conviction, he is entitled to a new trial due to insufficient evidence for one of the alternative felonies un
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ANALYSIS We review a district court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for purposes of impeachment under a “clear abuse of discretion standard.”
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The standard for prosecutorial misconduct (which would seem equally applicable to prosecutorial error) is that “we reverse only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
-57 (Minn.2006), Van Keuren claims that the prosecutor in his case impermissibly argued that Van Keu-ren had tailored his trial testimony to explain away unfavorable evidence.
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Reversal is not required if the error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” and if “the verdict ‘was surely unattributable’ to the misconduct.” Wren, d at 394 ().
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
In State v. Swanson, we concluded that “[a] witness who is alleged to have committed the crime instead of the defendant is, as a matter of law, not an accomplice.”
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, (noting that once objected-to prosecutorial misconduct has been established, a defendant will be granted a new trial unless the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which will only be found if the verdict was surely unattributable to the trial error); d
State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
When considering issues of prosecutorial misconduct, this court will “reverse only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
the supreme court drew an important distinction between permissibly addressing witness credibility and impermissibly vouching for a witness.
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Under section 609.05, “liability attaches when one plays some knowing role in the commission of a crime and takes no steps to thwart its completion.” -59 (Minn.2006)