Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130.

346 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Because Clark does not invoke the Minnesota Constitution, we do not consider whether admission of the evidence of Clark’s prearrest silence violated his right against self- incrimination under the Minnesota Constitution.
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 130, 148 (Minn. 2012) (reviewing “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence,” in determining whether prosecutor improperly shifted burden of proof (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
At this third step, “the district court may take into consideration whether the [s]tate’s strike will result in the disproportionate exclusion of members of a certain race.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, we utilize a harmless-error test, “the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” 3 In cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct, “we require certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before we affirm.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review claims of prosecutorial misconduct, to which there was an objection at trial, under “a harmless-error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under the invited-error doctrine, “a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
See, n.10 (Minn. 2011); n.2 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016