Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hurd, 763 N.W.2d 17.

69 citing documents.

Thomas Gabor Gratzer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(declining to reach an issue “not raised in the parties’ briefs”).
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Glenn Lee Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Glenn Lee Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Nor has Burton advanced any argument regarding a “less restrictive” treatment program or facility on appeal, and “[i]n general, issues not raised in the parties’ briefs are waived.” d 17, 32 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
() (noting that “time of death” may be relevant issue on which to admit “gruesome pictures of the victim’s body”).
Larry Jonnell Gilbert, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jetaun Helen Wheeler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Minn. 2020
State v. Hurd , (discussing Rainer); Opsahl, d at 423 (discussing Larrison).
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hurd , , 26 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[A] defendant is not entitled to a new trial .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
517 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (holding that although the issues in question were properly raised in the petition for review, the defendant forfeited appellate review of the issues when he failed to brief or argue the issues in our court); see also Staunton v. State , , 296 n.8 (Minn. 2010) (same); Barnes v. State , , 363 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (same); State v. Hurd , , 32 (Minn. 2009) (same); Scruggs v. State , , 24 n.1 (Minn. 1992) (same).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(declining to reach issue in absence of adequate briefing); (holding that assignment of error in brief based on “mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived”).
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
804(b)(3); -35 (Minn.2009) (explaining that the statement-against-interest exception applies , to statements exculpating the.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (noting that two of that defendant’s cellmates testified about an incriminating conversation with the defendant); d 615, 619-20 (Minn. 2004) (holding that the district court’s finding, based on a witness’s testimony, that the initial conversation between the witness and the
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In general, issues not raised in the parties’ briefs are waived.” n.3 (Minn. 2008) (“Failure to brief or argue an issue on appeal results in waiver of that issue on appeal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
4 proof required for each Rainer element is a fair preponderance of the evidence.3
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
We apply “an abuse of discretion standard to review the postconviction court’s determination of whether to grant a new trial based on new evidence.”
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
accord United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284, 1301 (1st Cir.1997) (“[T]he corroboration requirement ‘should be construed in such a manner as to effectuate its purpose of circumventing fabrication.’”) (quoting Fed.R.Evid.
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
‘We review the admission of photographic evidence for abuse of discretion.”
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010