Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pearson, 775 N.W.2d 155.

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
“[T]he State may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in its closing argument.” ().
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Because Colbert could not make a timely objection at trial to the witness interference, his case does not implicate the principle underlying the forfeiture doctrine: “encourage[ing] defendants to object while in the district court so that errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.”
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
r, (concluding that district court plainly erred by not redacting references to polygraph test from recording and transcript of police interview); (“[a]ssuming without deciding that the State’s failure to redact the content of some of Mosley’s text messages constituted plain error”); -62 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that district court plainly erred by not editing recording of police interrogation to remove references to request for counsel).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De’Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De’Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In closing argument, a lawyer may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” d 155, 163 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
( 161-62 (Minn. 2009) (holding that failure to redact defendant’s statements about getting a lawyer from police interview was error).
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[i]n closing argument, a lawyer may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
Put differently, the forfeiture doctrine “encourages defendants to object while in the [district] court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.”
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. J. and C. F., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. J. and C. F., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[A prosecutor] may not speculate without a factual basis.” (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Carridine, d at 142; Evans, d at 867
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
(undue prejudice); (relevance); (Spreigl evidence).
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011