Cited by

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

278 citing documents.

State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Under this statute, liability attaches when one plays some knowing role in the commission of the crime and takes no steps to thwart its completion.” -59 (Minn.2006) (quotation omitted).
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
“A prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of witnesses.” (citation omitted).
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 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
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
“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 v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
We will review any objected-to prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the misconduct is “ ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” -58 (Minn.2006) ().
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
(emphasis added; internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
(“A witness who is alleged to have committed the crime *865 instead, of the defendant is, as a matter of law, not an accomplice under section 634.04.'').