Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492.

125 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust 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
If the plain- error test is satisfied, this court “will correct the error only if the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Davis, d at 682 (“[T]he evidence against Davis 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. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he Constitution guarantees a fair trial—not a perfect or error-free trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
tting C.W.’s out-of-court statements to the physician assistant—that “the big guy had hurt him” and had “touched his pee-pee and his butt” and that his “pee-pee and butt hurt”— under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception.2 “Generally, a reviewing court defers to the district court’s evidentiary rulings and will not overturn the rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
see Olano, 507 U.S. at 730-34 , 113 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
making arguments that would divert the jury from its duty to decide a case on the evidence by injecting issues broader than a defendant’s guilt or innocence into the trial.” (citation omitted).
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
State v. Dobbins (Dobbins I)
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Under this standard of review, we “determine whether the misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
But “the Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739 , 107 S.Ct.
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
“[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that it is improper for the state to highlight a defendant’s racial or socioeconomic status as a way to put evidence in context.” ().
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
“[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that it is improper for the state to highlight a defendant’s racial or socioeconomic status as a way to put evidence in context.” ().
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by