Cited by

codes.”); (“We recognize that although we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

may be cited as persuasive authority.”); see also Citizens for a (explaining that this court is bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court but not the decision of any other federal court); (observing that this court is not bound to follow precedent from other state courts), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

However, this caselaw is merely persuasive, rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010), and there is controlling authority in Minnesota that states evidence of fear is admissible to aid witness credibility and explain inconsistencies, Maye, d at 108, which is why the state elicited this testimony from K.F.

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

traction the moment she was contacted by the police.” We are mindful of persuasive authority that, when the law is unsettled, an attorney’s “failure to anticipate a rule of law that has yet to be articulated by the governing courts surely cannot render counsel’s performance professionally unreasonable.” Fields v. United States, 201 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2000); (“We recognize that although we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be pers

695 F.2d 634, 637 (1st Cir. 1982) ; see State v. McClenton , (“[A]lthough we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

Fasthorse claims that the district court abused its discretion when it “simply listed several of Fasthorse’s prior convictions without comparing the facts underlying the 6 convictions.” In so doing, rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

6 See Chatrie, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 925-26 (declining to decide whether defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data sought by a geofence warrant and noting that the analysis rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

“[T]heft is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery.” State v. McClenton , ( rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

(“The defendant’s right to present witnesses is subject to the rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and 8 reliability in the determination of guilt.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

“[A]lthough we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.” rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

Although only persuasive, 6 federal caselaw states that 6 (addressing authorities from other states and federal courts), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); -17 (Minn. App. 2013) (addressing Eighth Circuit in particular), aff’d on other grounds

State v. McClenton , (“mental illness caused by voluntary intoxication is not a defense”) (quotation omitted ), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); see Minn. Stat. § 609.075 (2018) (“An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof.

15, 2011); State v. McClenton , (reaching the same conclusion), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

3 Title IX examines “sex” discrimination and does not articulate gender identity discrimination like the MHRA does, but the United States Supreme Court has recently 16 See Kolton, d at 407; (“[A]lthough we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.”), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

(stating federal court decisions may be persuasive b ut are not precedential), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); Vlahos v. R&I Constr.

And this court has previously determined that “the ft is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery.” State v. McClenton , 7 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); see also State v. Nunn

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010) .

Moreover, while “[w]e recognize that we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.” review denied (Minn. Jun.

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

See Gorman, d at 9-10 (finding pattern of criminal conduct for convictions that “involved assaultive behavior”); review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010) (finding pattern of criminal conduct for crimes committed to support defendant’s illegal drug habit); review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (finding pattern of criminal conduct in defendant’s seven pr

See State v. McClenton , , 191 (Minn. App. 2010) ("We recognize that although we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive."), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

d 181, 189 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); (holding that a district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on involuntary intoxication when the defendant had failed to make a prima facie showing of temporary mental illness

–88 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010) (applying Coleman).

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

And this court previously has concluded that evidence of prior crimes, in the absence of evidence of the factual bases for those crimes, “should not have been used to determine whether [the] appellant engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct as the record contained no ‘facts’ by which the jury could determine whether the offenses had similar characteristics.” review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010), cert.

review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

While federal caselaw may be persuasive, review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

“[A]lthough we are not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts, these authorities can be persuasive.” review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).