Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128.

124 citing documents.

Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ment and appropriate type and level of treatment); (concluding that probation department could compel appellant to sign agreement requiring him to “remain law abiding, avoid possessing firearms or illegal narcotics, inform his probation officer before leaving the state, and submit to searches of his residence”), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jon Larcom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jon Larcom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. S. A. M. 877 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. S. A. M. 877 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 521; (reaffirming Moon in light of recent amendments to the firearm-prohibition statute); - 30 (Minn. 1995) (concluding that applicant who seeks licensure as a peace officer whose felony conviction was subsequently deemed a misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.13
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Glenn Joecks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Glenn Joecks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We have said that a prosecutor’s statement, “I suggest to you that Ms. Ruschmeyer was a very credible witness in this case,” was not plain error because it was equivalent to the permissible expression of opinion “I submit.” –65 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bolding Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bolding Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant did not raise this issue in the district court, and appellate courts “do not ordinarily decide issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, even constitutional questions of criminal procedure.” (quotation omitted); see State v. 4 We reject appellant’s pro se argument that D.D.
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that the statement “[T]he state believes [the witness] is very believable” constituted impermissible vouching); (holding that prosecutor’s statement “I suggest that [the witness ] was a very credible witness” was “not [an] impermissible expression[] of opinion”), aff’d, 1 As in Swanson, the impermissible vouching used by the prosecutor here amounted to only a small part of the prosecutor’s closing argument, the evidence against appellant was strong, and any error did not affect appellan
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
“We do not ordinarily decide ‘issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, even constitutional questions of criminal procedure.’ ” ().
Paige J. Wentzel v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paige J. Wentzel v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whether a search is constitutional is reviewed de novo, but whether consent was voluntarily given is a question of fact and is reviewed for clear error, Diede, d at 846-47.
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
Because in 2013 Franklin did not have five prior felony convictions, the district court erred by sentencing Franklin under the career-offender statute.1 When 1 The State’s is unavailing because the statutory language at issue in each of those cases is different from the statutory language at issue here.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.”); (stating the standard for reviewing district court’s reasonable-suspicion determination for Terry stops and probable-cause determin
State of Minnesota v. Dana James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dana James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2014
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119–21, 122 S. Ct. 587, 592–93 (2001)
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-39 (Minn. 2007) (refusing to consider a challenge to the validity of a probation condition where the issue was not raised in district court).
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“We review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.” (noting that standard for reviewing district court’s reasonable-suspicion determination for Terry stops and probable-cause determination for warrantless searches is de novo).
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Patterson 819 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Patterson 819 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating an appellate court reviews interpretation of criminal statutes de novo).
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by