Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814.

165 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al v. Brian John Irgens Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Rufo Hamid Mumed Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In situations where our review comes after a defendant filed a direct appeal that was stayed to permit her to pursue postconviction relief, as is the case here, “we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Omar Kwabena Walford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [this court] review[s] the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jermaine Octavious Stansberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(noting that reversal and remand for a new trial “in the interests of justice is li mited to exceptional circumstances” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Norman Darnell Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Edward Dean Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 D E C I S I O N “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconvi ction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Eric Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
As happened here, “[w]hen a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew David Feeney Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–44 (Minn. 2012), but the case falls far short of supporting his theory.
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Chris Marquis McMorris Minn. Ct. App. 2019
First, to support his claim that he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the prosecutors intimidated his expert witness, -50 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Sullivan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N When an appellant stays a direct appeal in order “to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Alan Klund Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N I. Standard of Review When a defendant files a direct appeal and then moves to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief, “we review the postconviction court ’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Brock Lawrence Altringer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconvict ion relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jay Flavin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Beecroft , , 846 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James Willard Francisco v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
839 (Minn. 2012) (stating that if fact-finders are exposed to o pinions of the state’s expert witnesses, a defendant must be provided with an equal opportunity to present the opposing views of the defendant’s expert).
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
See State v. Beecroft , , 846 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Merlin John Sherer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether a due process violation has occurred presents a question 4 of constitutional law, which we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Steven Mittelsted Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
Aeon, Maria Antonia Alvarez Baez, et al v. Lowry Grove Partnership, LLP, The Village, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Nicholas Heinze Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When a defendant files a direct appeal and then moves to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief, “we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direc t appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Kara-Ann Marie Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
rgues that the state impermissibly badgered her during cross-examination, relying on State v. Beecroft, which states, “in determining whether the State has infringed 7 on a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense by interfering with a witness,” appellate courts consider “whether the government actor’s interference with a witness’s decision to testify was substantial.” (quotation omitted).
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joshua Lloyd Gangestad v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joshua Lloyd Gangestad v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 814, 836 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION I. Validity of the Guilty Plea “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
Jesse John Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse John Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hugh Herman Hansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hugh Herman Hansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Edward Reps Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A due-process violation “presents a question of constitutional law, which [is] review[ed] de novo.”
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1228-29 (5th Cir. 1986) (applying the plain-error standard when the defendant failed to object to alleged witness interference and concluding that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated); (plurality opinion) (applying the plain-error standard to the defendant’s witness-interference claim absent objection on due process grounds at trial); (explaining that when a defendant does not object, we have the discretion to consider the unobj
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When a defendant 2 initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that [they] apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2 DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [an appellate court] review[s] the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that [it] appl[ies] on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-39 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the “right of a defendant to present a complete defense is an essential principle of our criminal justice system and is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution”)