Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Atkinson, 774 N.W.2d 584.

92 citing documents.

State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)); (“A defendant’s right to present a complete defense is not absolute.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A defendant has the constitutional right to present a complete defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A defendant has the constitutional right to present a complete defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the defendant establishes foundation, he may then introduce “evidence of a motive of the third person to commit the crime, threats by the third person, or other miscellaneous facts tending to prove the third party committed the crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007); (proceeding directly to the third prong and considering only whether the alleged plain error was prejudicial).
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
I. “A defendant has the constitutional right to present a complete defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
see also Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 858-59 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
Like all defendants accused of criminal behavior, Nissalke “has the constitutional right to present a complete defense.”
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
(skipping the first two prongs of the plain-error test and considering only whether the alleged plain error was prejudicial); (noting that while “[n]ormally, we would consider each prong of the plain-error test in order,” the court "need not do so” in t
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
Larson, like all defendants accused of criminal behavior, “has the constitutional right to present a complete defense.”
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
We have consistently held and recently reaffirmed that “[m]ere presence at the scene of the crime does not, by itself, create an inherent tendency to connect a person alleged to be the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” (-69 (Minn.1999)).