Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ferguson, 742 N.W.2d 651.

60 citing documents.

Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
hether the district court is reasonably well-satisfied that the trial testimony given by a material witness was false; (2) whether without the false testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (3) whether the petitioner was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.”
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
C. Our holding that appellant’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated by the admission of McGee’s recorded police statements does not end our inquiry, for such violations “are subject to harmless error analysis.” -57 (Minn.2007).
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
ANALYSIS “On review of postconviction decisions, we extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (“[o]n review of a postconviction decision, this court determines whether there is sufficient evidence to support the post-conviction court’s findings”).