Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wembley, 728 N.W.2d 243.

121 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“An assignment of error in a brief based on ‘mere assertion’ and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Sergey Alekseyevich Porada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sergey Alekseyevich Porada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that alleged error not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(noting that an assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Underland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Underland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“An assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”), aff’d on other grounds
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
(“An assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)), affd on other grounds
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-46 (concluding that defendant waived any right to challenge a procedure by consenting to and actively encouraging the procedure).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
-46 (Minn. *610 2007) (determining that the interests of justice did not require considering defendant’s argument regarding a recording, because the defendant for “a tactical reason” had “affirmatively requested that the jury have access to the tape”); (determining t
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
-46 (Minn.2007) (explaining that the interests of justice did not require consideration of defendant’s argument regarding tape recording because defendant had “affirmatively requested” that the jury consider that recording for a “tactical reason”), -11 (Minn.2006) (concluding
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-91 (Minn.App.2006), aff'd, (rejecting Wembley’s sole issue on review, that the district court committed reversible error by replaying the victim’s CornerHouse interview for the jury off the record and without his presence or presence of the district court).