Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Graham, 764 N.W.2d 340.

93 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Angel Serrata Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( “[W]hen the [evidentiary] ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted” (quotat
State of Minnesota v. Solomon Washington McIntyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, “we lo ok to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Improper Closing Argument Vacko argues that the “entirety of the State’s closing argument is rife with improper comments that belittle [her ].” In determining whether the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, this court looks to the “the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sarar Chan Chhoy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” State v. Graham
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
(“A defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense is not an unfettered right; it does not permit a defendant to compel a prospective witness to waive her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When the district court’s evidentiary “ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Thomas Deitering Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Thomas Deitering Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a district court incorrectly excludes evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that prosecutor did not make improper closing argument by “argu[ing] that the defense had not, based on the evidence, presented a solid case” through “statements directed at .
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
5 during a criminal trial, see, -50 (Minn. 2009), we have never considered a claim that a government actor interfered with a witness before or during a postconviction evidentiary hearing.3 In this case, we need not decide the exact form of assistance that due process requires in a postconviction proceeding.
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
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Porter, d at 364 (stating that the state’s arguments must be based on evidence produced at trial, or reasonable inferences from that evidence, but need not be “colorless”); -57 (Minn. 2009) (rejecting argument that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by asking for justice for the victims, concluding that the state asked the jury to seek justice based on the evidence and not to inflame passions).
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that “convictions obtained by a prosecutor who was unlicensed to practice law at the time of the conviction should be set aside only when the defendant is able to show prejudice warranting reversal”).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Explained State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
we explained that we retain, under our supervisory power, the right to grant a new trial prophylactically or in the interests of justice.
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
is whether the government actor’s interference with a witness’s decision to testify was substantial.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
(“Ideally, a transcript of C.H.’s interview should have been prepared by the State, or, alternatively, the transcript made by defense counsel should have been provided to the State for verification, or the district court should have either ordered the State to verify the relevant parts of the transcri
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
(“Ideally, a transcript of C.H.’s interview should have been prepared by the State, or, alternatively, the transcript made by defense counsel should have been provided to the State for verification, or the district court should have either ordered the State to verify the relevant parts of the transcri
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
We must determine if the State committed any misconduct and, if it did, “we will grant a new trial when the misconduct impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
We have not yet decided whether this two-tiered approach set forth in Caron “remains viable.”
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009