Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 770 N.W.2d 470.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-81 (Minn. 2009) (holding that Jackson was not entitled to a new trial where he failed to prove the state’s discovery violation prejudiced him).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.8 (Minn. 2009) (disregarding appellant’s argument that evidence was not relevant because it was not raised at the district court) ().
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Such remedy is reserved for particularly “egregious” cases where, for example, the state “took affirmative steps to interfere with the defendant’s ability to gather information from potential witnesses.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.1, 483 -84 (Minn. 2009) (acknowledging that evidence of a certain incident was “probative” on the issue of whether the defendant, who was charged with attempted murder for the benefit of a gang, was affiliated with a gang and that the state’s case depended on showing that affiliation) ; see also Moore v. S
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
8 (noting the general requirement of showing prejudice under Rule 9.01).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-0218 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Jackson , -81 (Minn. 2009) (determining that even if the state violated the discovery rule, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different) ; -45 (Minn. 1982) (granting a new trial in the “interests of justice and to [ensure] that the recip
Jackson v. State 919 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2018
Jackson v. State 919 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2018
A17-0191 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Jackson , , 483 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that erroneous admission of evidence did not substantially influence the verdict because the erroneously-admitted evidence was cumulative to other evidence and there was "strong evidence" *651 of the defendant's guilt).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing both the abuse of discretion and the prejudice justifying reversal.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
had been produced.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to sever for abuse of discretion.”) with Kendell, d at 607 (“[W]e hold that de novo review is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for severance of offenses under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
(noting that the grand jury’s task is to determine probable cause, not guilt or innocence).
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
(noting the general requirement of showing prejudice under Rule 9.01); (describing prejudice as one of the elements of a successful Brady claim).
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010