Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jenkins, 782 N.W.2d 211.

149 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court only considers “whether the judge issuing the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause 4 existed.” -23 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Hester, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Hester, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In answering this question, “[appellate courts] are to consider the totality of the circumstances and must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 211, 225-26 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Destruction of evidence “A defendant’s right to due process of law is implicated when the [s]tate loses, destroys, or otherwise fails to preserve material evidence.” d 211, 235 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(declining to “consider the remaining prongs of the plain-error test” after 4 concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”); –31 (Minn. 2010) (concluding during plain-error review that “the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit any error when it granted the State’s motion to exclude the evidence on relevance grounds”); (“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest wit
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Wayne Leonard Heinz. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Wayne Leonard Heinz. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)).
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Evidentiary rulings are within the discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion.” see also McDonald, d at 660 (“The standard of review of the adequacy of foundation for the admission of evidence is whether an abuse of discretion is shown.”).
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 211, 222 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The state’s failure to preserve potentially useful evidence “does not constitute a denial of due process unless the defendant shows bad faith on the part of the police.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Leon Abb Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Leon Abb Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Courts “must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” (quotation admitted).
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The reasonableness of the actions of the police is an objective inquiry based on the collective knowledge of the officers.”
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[O]ur only consideration is whether the judge issuing the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” -23 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
-26 (Minn.2010); see also U.S. Const, amend.
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
(applying rationale from Youngblood); -37 (Minn.2010) (same); (citing Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58 , 109 S.Ct.
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
P. 31.02; -30 (Minn.2010).
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To argue that respondent must show that the blood sample was destroyed in bad faith, (requiring courts to consider “whether the destruction [of the evidence] was intentional and whether the exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence was apparent and material”) (quotations omitted) -56 (Minn.App.2004) (requiring defendants, when exculpatory
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
When reviewing for plain error, we first ask “(1) whether there was error, (2) whether the error was plain, and (3) whether the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” -30 (Minn.2010).
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
A defendant has a right to present a meaningful defense, which “includes the right to present evidence that a third party may have committed the crime for which the defendant is charged.” see also Minn. Const. art. 1 § 6.
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Plain-error analysis “involves four steps.”
State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Evidentiary rulings are within the discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion.”