Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89.

190 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A prosecutor’s misstatement of the burden of proof is highly improper and constitutes misconduct.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
Bailey, d at 619 (“[I]f .
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
argue that a witness was or was not credible.”
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
(stating that a “compelling reason” is required to overrule precedent).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Appellate courts give considerable deference to the district court’s 6 finding on the issue of the prosecutor’s intent because the court’s finding typically turns largely on credibility.” (“We afford great deference because the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the [district] court may consider.”) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nissalke, d at 105–06; (considering strength of evidence against defendant, pervasiveness of misconduct, and mitigation of misconduct to determine whether possible prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The prosecutor’s explanation “need not be persuasive or even plausible.”
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
State v. Martin (Martin I)
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When an objection was not made to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, [appellate courts] review under a modified plain-error test.”
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although a prosecutor may argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor “may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed.” ().
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
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Schuette v. City of Hutchinson 843 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2014
Schuette v. City of Hutchinson 843 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2014
We are extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent absent “a compelling reason.”
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
(stating that we require a "compelling reason” before a prior decision will be overturned); (explaining that we are “extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis ”).
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu acknowledges that the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his commitment proceeding is a settled question under Johnson, but argues that Johnson was “incorrectly decided.” “We are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis.’ ” ().