Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674.

207 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant argues that these comments were improper and “made up a significant portion of her closing argument,” (stating that misconduct was not pervasive when it covered less than one page of a 64-page argument).
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]t is error for a district court to fail to make a record of its consideration of the Jones factors, though the error is harmless if it is nonetheless clear that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of the convictions.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(d 674, 682 (Minn. 2007)).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that misconduct affected the jury’s verdict, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
When considering whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights, “we consider ‘the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-81 (Minn. 2007) (applying the Jones factors to five prior convictions in one analysis).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t is error for a district court to fail to make a record of its consideration of the Jones factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because appellant did not argue this to the district court, our standard of review is plain error.2 (holding that plain error is error that violated a law, rule, or standard of conduct); (setting out plain-error criteria as (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and noting that, if these criter
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
When considering whether an error had a significant effect on the verdict, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“In assessing whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict, we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
We set forth the facts of Davis’s crimes in our opinion affirming his conviction, -78 (Minn.2007), and we briefly recount them here.
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
In determining whether the State has met this burden, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
To determine whether the state has satisfied its burden, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[E]vidence of prior convictions generally has some impeachment value because it allows the jury to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of the witness’s testimony.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
The State “has a right to vigorously argue its case” and it can argue that the “evidence does not support particular defenses.”
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008