Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572.

140 citing documents.

State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
P. 31.01, 31.02; -84 (Minn.2007) (explaining that both harmless error and plain error review require that, for an error to be reversible, it must affect a defendant’s substantial rights).
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
In cases *611 where “it is unclear whether a witness is an accomplice or not, it generally becomes a question of fact for the jury to decide.” ().
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
see also Pendleton, d at 909 (“[a]ssessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury”); Harris, d at 229 (“[wjhere evidence of corroboration appears its weight and credibility is for the *300 jury” to determine (citation om
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Usually [plain error] is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Usually [clear or obvious error] is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
(stating that because a district court is required by case law to sua sponte deliver an accomplice corroboration instruction to the jury, failure to give it was error which was plain).
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
“When it is unclear whether a witness is an accomplice or not, it generally becomes a question of fact for the jury to decide.”
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
“ ‘Circumstantial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.’ ” ().