Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Turnage, 729 N.W.2d 593.

74 citing documents.

Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
The question instead is whether the jury might have found the defendant not guilty if the recanting witness had not testified [falsely].” (emphasis added); accord Martin, d at 744 .
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To satisfy that burden, an appellant “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
We also concluded, applying the second prong of Larrison , that Ferguson had alleged sufficient facts in his petition that, if proven, would show that the jury “ ‘might have found [him] not guilty if [Green] had not testified.’ ” Ferguson II, d at 561 ().
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
State v. Turnage (Turnage II)
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Similarly, we explained in State v. Turnage that “the second Larrison prong does not ask whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant in the absence of the recanted testimony.”
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Under the second prong of Larri-son, we ask “whether the jury might have found the defendant not guilty if the recanting witness had not testified.”
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
(stating that the question under the second prong of Larrison is whether the jury might have found the defendant not guilty if the recanting witness had not testified).
Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
We have said that “[t]he first two prongs [of the Larrison test] are compulsory, but the third prong is not required in order to grant a new trial.”
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
(discussing second prong).