DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Francis v. State, 729 N.W.2d 584.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (concluding that the state’s questioning of a defense character witness regarding the defendant’s specific prior acts of violence was not prejudicial because “the district court confined the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defense character witness to the scope of the direct examination and
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.” d 584, 590 (Minn. 2007).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    A. D.W.’s Testimony “Assessing the credibility of a witness and the weight to be given a witness’s testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”
  • Eligio Rodriguez Cerrito, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “As a general rule, [appellate courts] reverse only if th e misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence, direct a nd circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt is sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach that conclusion.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    When reviewing a challenge to the sufficien cy of the evidence, this court reviews the record “to determine whet her the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt is sufficient to perm it the jury to reach that conclusion.” Francis v. State , (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    When reviewing a challenge to the suffici ency of the evidence , this court reviews the record “to determine whet her the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt is sufficient to perm it the jury to reach that conclusion.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • Robert Louis Freeman, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • A18-0489 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Appellant asserts plain error occurred in this case because the statements were a “direct endorsement of [A.K.T.’s] credibility.” “The assessment of a witness’s credibility ‘is exclusively the province of the jury,’” (d 584, 589 (Minn. 2007)), and “[i]t is improper for the state to express a personal opinion on [a witness’s] credibility.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Luis Fernando Escobar-Chilel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Luis Fernando Escobar-Chilel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (stating that the assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the fact-finder).
  • Francis v. State 829 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2013
  • Francis v. State 829 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2013
    are set forth in detail in Francis v. State (Francis I), we limit our facts to those related to this appeal.
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
    A thorough review of voir dire reveals no action on the part of trial counsel falling below an “objective standard of reasonableness.” (appellant has the burden to demonstrate that the actions of his counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the outcome of trial would have been different had counsel proceeded differently).
  • Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
  • Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
    His decision not to present the evidence at trial falls squarely within our conclusion in Francis v. State that “[w]hat evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
  • Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
    Francis v. State (Francis I)
  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (“Assessing the credibility of a witness and the weight to be given a witness’s testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”).
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
    The assessment of a witness’s credibility “is exclusively the province of the jury.”