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. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89.

188 citing documents.

  • State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory strike is a factual determination, [an appellate court] give[s] great deference to the district court’s ruling and will not reverse unless it is clearly erroneous.”
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
    (explaining that “[w]e are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis’” ()).
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
    [and w]e require a ‘compelling reason’ before a prior decision will be overruled.” ().
  • State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    A. Nature of the Offense Charged The nature of the offense charged favors joinder when “the overwhelming majority of the evidence presented [is] admissible against both [defendants], and substantial evidence [is] presented that [codefendants] worked in close concert with one another.” -100 (Minn.2009) (quotations and citation omitted).
  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
  • In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
    See Warren, d at 450 (holding that the newly discovered evidence test and the newly available evidence are the same); Whittaker, d at 671 (same); (explaining that we are "ex *676 tremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis " and that we require a "compelling reason before a prior decision will be overruled” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
    The Caron harmless-error test for “unusually serious” misconduct requires us to ask whether the alleged misconduct was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” McDaniel, d at 749
  • State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
    But prosecutors “must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices” against defendants, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), and avoid “belittling] the defense,”
  • SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
  • SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
    ’ and ‘require a compelling reason’ to do so.” ().
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
    -98 (Minn.2009) (declining to overturn precedent because defendant failed to show a compelling reason to do so); -80 (Minn.1999) (holding that as applied to a 17-year-old convicted of murdering a peace officer, life in prison without the possibility of release does not cons
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
    P. 103.04; Dykes, d at 584 n. 2; State v. Martin, *875 , 97 n. 2 (Minn.2009).
  • Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
  • Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010
  • Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
    The Fourteenth Amendment “prohibits purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection.” -01 (Minn.2009).
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
    a case arising from the trial of the two men who shot Christopher Lynch, we stated that “[prosecutors improperly shift the burden of proof when they imply that a defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.” -52 (Minn.1997).
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
    We addressed this specific contention, based on the same facts and legal arguments, decided today.