Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373.

222 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Vincent Illya Cotten Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In State v. Caldwell , Caldwell alleged that his cou nsel was ineffective because counsel failed to use voir dire effectively, alleging “[defense ] counsel’s questioning of prospective jurors was perfunctory.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Blanchard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
that he had come across the firearm and this “strongly suggest[ed] he wanted the gun to remain in the home.” 4 Caldwell, ().
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[T]he acquittal of a principal does not bar conviction of a defendant for aiding and abetting .
State of Minnesota v. Elijah Rashad Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Getz v. Peace 918 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Caldwell , , 382 (Minn. 2011) ("We will not supply words that the Legislature either purposely omitted or inadvertently left out.").
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
At this stage in the analysis, we assume that the court, acting as fact -finder, “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “t he jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Allen St. Claire Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Odall Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved a ny evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. W. and H. E. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, (holding no ineffective assistance of counsel based on the claim that trial counsel “consulted with [defendant] only three times”).
State of Minnesota v. Noe Hugo Toscano Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’ s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Willard Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
James Michael McConnell, et al v. Blue Earth County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mykhailo Starodubtsev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Matthew Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gatwech Yiek Thach Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that this court presumes that jury believed state witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Devante Lemuel Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Expressio unius generally reflects an inference that any omissions in a statute are intentional.” (citations omitted); see, e.g., Staab v. Diocese of St.
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” (citations omitted); see, e.g., Staab v. Diocese of St.
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Weldon Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 121 (quoting State v. Caldwell , (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2356 (2000), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072 (1970))).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Funches Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses an d disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Richard Jerome Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Lawrence Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We 4 must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
.The dissent also asserts that our interpretation conflicts with the canon “expressio unius est exclusio alterius," meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Frederick Gratz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Patrick McShane Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A petitioner for postconviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when “material facts are in dispute that must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey James Fordham Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Corey James Fordham Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 Our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016