Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854.

158 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“A finding by a district court of the presence or absence of [juror] bias is based upon 10 determinations of demeanor and credibility and, thus, entitled to deference.” (quotation omitted)); (“Bec
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-73 (Minn. 2008) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing district court’s decision to limit its in camera review of witness’s medical records to a single hospital visit that occurred on the day before the offense).
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2015
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2015
We affirmed Evans’s conviction on direct appeal, State v. Evans (Evans I), and the district court’s subsequent denial of his first postconviction petition, Evans v. State (Evans II)
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Milton Thomas. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Milton Thomas. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court finding is clearly erroneous only when there is no reasonable evidence to support it, leaving us with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” d 854, 870 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
Bookwalter, d at 296 ; (concluding that first-degree peace-officer murder is not a strict liability offense because “ ‘[l]ack of knowledge of a peace officer’s identity does not change the fact that intent to kill must be shown’ ” ()).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even if a district court “could have concluded otherwise,” a finding of fact will 6 not be reversed if there is “reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact.” -71 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
We will identify the juror as “Juror M.” “Actual bias is a question of fact which the district court is in the best [position] to evaluate.” (internal citations omitted).
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
(quoting Fletcher v. St.
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
In order for a credibility determination to be clearly erroneous, we must “be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew William Serres Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the “clearly erroneous standard requires that we be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,” and “[i]f we find reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact, we will not disturb those findings” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Followed State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
B. Cross-Examination A district court has broad discretion in evidentiary matters related to cross- examination, but “the Confrontation Clause operates as a limit on that discretion.” -51 (Minn. 2006)).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
-76 (Minn.2008) (noting that because “there is no language in the statute indicating that knowledge of the victim’s status as a peace officer is required,” knowledge that a person is a peace officer is not required to be convicted of first-degree murder for killing a peace officer).
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
a portrait of [the victim] in his police uniform.”
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Clearly erroneous means we have a “ ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” (citation omitted).
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010