Cited by

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

346 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Yuri Alexander Taylor 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. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(declining to reach the issue of the continued viability of the two-tier test).
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If there is an objection to prosecutorial misconduct, the overarching question on review is whether the misconduct “impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Roman Nose, d at 401 (quotation omitted); (analyzing whether objected-to prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
As a general rule “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. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[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. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof, this court reviews “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective 8 phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The plain- error doctrine holds that “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. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A party generally cannot base his appeal on an error he invited, nor can he appeal based on his own trial strategy
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
Jury instructions “must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.”
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When reviewing objected-to alleged prosecutorial conduct, we have utilized a harmless-error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
But the questioning of prospective jurors at voir dire can be wide ranging and cover details of trial strategy, and we have stated that “[t]he scope of voir dire is committed to the district court’s sound discretion.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).”
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
In other words, we consider “whether the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” 14 (citing Griller, d at 741 ).