Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Colbert, 716 N.W.2d 647.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether a discovery violation occurred presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Inconsistencies or conflicts between one witness and another d o not necessarily constitute false testimony or serv e as a basis for reversal.” d 647, 653 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While Collins is correct that T.J.’s and D.S.’s testimony was inconsistent on se veral points, his argument fails because inconsistencies are not indicative of false testimony, and factfinders are “free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony .” State v. Colbert , (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a discovery violation occurred presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[t]he rules do not require that disclosure take any particular form.”
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a discovery violation occurred presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a discovery violation occurred presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
State v. Colbert (Colbert I)
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 480-81 (concluding that failure to produce unredacted transcript of police interview with one witness did not warrant a new trial when the defense was able to impeach that witness without the transcript, and the state’s evidence against the defendant was strong); (2) whether the new evidence would have changed the state’s theory of the case, see, (rejecting the argument that defendant was prejudiced by a change in a forensic video analyst’s opinion as changing the state’s theory of the case,
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Colbert v. State 811 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2012
Colbert v. State 811 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2012
See State v. Colbert (Colbert I), -53 (Minn.2006).
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
we considered a case similar to this case.
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that witness-credibility determinations are exclusive province of factfinder).