DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • 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 Minnesota Supreme Court “ha[s] held that the state should refrain from asking questions or 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.”
  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    See, -10 (Minn.2006) (silence used as impeachment); (post-arrest failure to testify before grand jury); (post-arrest silence); (same)
  • State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
    The remaining three questions do not require reversal because Simion held the credibility of the State’s witnesses in “central focus.” In State v. Dobbins, we concluded that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by asking the defendant if a State’s witness was lying, because the defendant held the credibility of that witness in “central focus.” cert.
  • State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
    -06 (Minn.2006) (holding that limitation on cross-examination of cooperating witness regarding the exact penalty the witness otherwise would have received was not a Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was allowed to cross-examine on other aspects of the plea agreement)
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
    The defendant shows the error was plain “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Id.; (finding that misconduct was plain error because it had “already been addressed and disapproved in our case law”).
  • State v. Edwards 736 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Edwards 736 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    -10, 513 (Minn.2006) (holding that unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct of eliciting testimony on post-Mi randa silence was not prejudicial and did not provide grounds for a new trial when line of questioning immediately ended).
  • State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
    See, -91 (Minn.2006); Swanson, d at 658
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007