Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wren, 738 N.W.2d 378.

105 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a defendant must show that an error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
had been tested at a 4th or 5th grade level-mentally challenged” and “The state doesn’t have to prove what doesn’t exist.” Edwards did not object to the state’s opening statement or closing argument and therefore “must establish both that [the alleged] misconduct constitutes error and that the error was plain.”
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We first address whether there was misconduct, and if so, whether it entitles Wren to a new trial.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
See, (motion to dismiss a complaint); (objection to an 5 indictment); (challenge to the adequacy of a complaint).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The defense objected to the prosecutor’s statement and we therefore utilize a harmless-error test, “the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We “first address whether there was misconduct, and if so, whether it entitles [Harper] to a new trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.9 (Minn. 2007) (discussing the inconsistent standards applied in various cases).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Huffman’s attorney objected to this statement, and the district court overruled the objection, explaining that the statement involved permissible “hyperbole.” When analyzing objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, we apply a harmless error test that “varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” d 378, 389 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “first address whether there was misconduct, and if so, whether it entitles [appellant] to a new trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We “first address whether there was misconduct, and if so, whether it entitles [Burns] to a new trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If a defendant has preserved an objection at trial, this court applies a harmless-error test to a prosecutorial-misconduct argument that “varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” -90 (Minn. 2007) ( n.4 (2006)).
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-89 (Minn. 2007) (upholding the district court’s rejection of a Batson challenge involving a juror who did not understand English).
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
“For objeeted-to prosecutorial misconduct, we have utilized a harmless error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” (noting that it has not been determined whether the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , “should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct” ()); see a
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
For objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, we have utilized a harmless error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008