Cited by

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

219 citing documents.

Joel Marvin Munt v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2016
Joel Marvin Munt v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
384 (Minn. 2011) (raising no concern with benefit-of-a-gang conviction when victim was bystander).
Scott Peterson, Roger Smith v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott Peterson, Roger Smith v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-87 (Minn. 2011) (concluding that appellant failed to rebut presumption that trial counsel’s performance was reasonable during voir dire because trial counsel was well prepared, asked questions of prospective jurors, and challenged several jurors for cause).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, d 373, 377, 390 (Minn. 2011) (affirming conviction of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang based on transferred intent).
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “limited trial preparation” does not establish inadequate representation; the focus is on the adversarial process not the defendant’s assessment of counsel’s preparation).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Robert P. Carlson, North Shore Federal Credit Union, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Robert P. Carlson, North Shore Federal Credit Union, Below. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“The doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that allegation that trial counsel met with him only twice before trial was simply an argumentative assertion with no factual support and no showing as to how it constituted ineffective assistance of counsel).
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
should be on the adversarial process rather than the defendant’s assessment of his lawyer’s preparation.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To establish an ineffective-assistance claim, a defendant “must show that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”
Bradley Tipka, Relator v. Lincoln International Charter School 864 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bradley Tipka, Relator v. Lincoln International Charter School 864 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the 4 contrary.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of Xcel's Request to Issue Renewable Development Fund Cycle 4 Requests for Proposals and Petition … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Xcel's Request to Issue Renewable Development Fund Cycle 4 Requests for Proposals and Petition … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
7 The canon of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, means that “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”
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
Such an outcome would be inconsistent with a defendant’s right to “a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 4 We confine our analysis to the first part of the definition because, in this case, there is no suggestion that Moore committed another crime against P.B.
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because this doctrine “generally reflects an inference that any omissions in a statute are intentional,” it is applied only when “the language of the statute supports such an inference.”
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because this doctrine “generally reflects an inference that any omissions in a statute are intentional,” it is applied only when “the language of the statute supports such an inference.”
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014