DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106.

88 citing documents.

  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
  • Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
    (“We will not allow [the petitioner] to avoid the Knaffla limitation simply by restating an evidentiary issue in terms of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”); *746 110 (Minn.2006).
  • 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 that the interests of justice did not require review when the defendant “did not raise to the district court the issue of racial discrimination in the grand jury selection process” at the proper time).
  • Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
  • Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
    (citing Knaffla, 309 Minn, at 252, d at 741 ); see also Minn.Stat.
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
    (stating that postconviction claims based on the trial record could have been known at the time of direct appeal and are therefore Knaffla barred).
  • Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
  • Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
    (noting “that an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is generally Knaffla- barred in a postconviction petition if the claim can be decided on the basis of the trial record and the briefs”); see also Leake, d at 535-36
  • McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
  • McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
  • Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
  • Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
    There are two exceptions to this rule: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
    There are two exceptions to this rule: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”
  • 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 that the interests of justice did not justify review when individual failed to challenge composition of jury at proper time), with Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., (affording party “benefit of the doubt” in interests
  • State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    ANALYSIS “On review of postconviction decisions, we extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (“[o]n review of a postconviction decision, this court determines whether there is sufficient evidence to support the post-conviction court’s findings”).
  • Blom v. State 744 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2007
  • Blom v. State 744 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
  • Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
  • Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
    (noting that although the defendant did not argue either Knaffla exception in his brief, the court could address the exception in the interests of judicial economy).