DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677.

173 citing documents.

  • State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
    “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious.”
  • 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. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
    -89 (Minn.2008) (holding that it was not plain error for the State to elicit testimony of pre-arrest silence because the legal rule was unsettled).
  • State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
    IV; (“Absent exceptions ..., a warrant supported by probable cause is necessary to obtain a sample of an individual’s DNA.”).
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
    (“But the alternative perpetrator defense opens the door for the prosecutor to present testimony exculpating the alleged alternative perpetrators.”).
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    -89 (Minn.2008) (holding that admission of the defendant’s pre-ar-rest silence before the defendant testified was not plain error because neither the Minnesota Supreme Court nor the federal courts have conclusively resolved the issue).
  • State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Factors to consider in assessing whether the state has met this burden are “[1] the strength of the evidence against the defendant, [2] the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and [3] whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” -93 (Minn.2008).
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
    “An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear and obvious.”
  • State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    An alleged error does not contravene case-law unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.”
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious,” usually because it clearly “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”