Cited by

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

346 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that application of test “varies based on the severity of the misconduct”).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
C. Pretext for purposeful discrimination Last, if the state’s explanation for the strike is race-neutral, the district court determines “whether the reason given was a pretext for purposeful discrimination.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An erroneous “evidentiary ruling will not be reversed unless the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The invited error doctrine does not apply, however, if an error meets the plain error test.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 130, 150 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
“Jury instructions ‘must fairly and adequately explain the law5 [and] define the crime charged.” () ().
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.”
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Thomas Lord Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–43 (Minn. 2012) (“[T]he defendant bears the heavy burden of showing that any error was prejudicial.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Thomas Lord Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An erroneous “evidentiary ruling will not be reversed unless the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Purposeful discrimination Finally, the third Batson step requires the district court to determine “whether the reason given was a pretext for purposeful discrimination.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
(), and “define the crime charged,” 7 id.
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by