Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sailee, 792 N.W.2d 90.

37 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: Z. C. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: Z. C. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
These are referred to as “the Lindsey factors.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Heidi Ann Collins, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Morex Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating adverse rulings by a judge, alone, do not constitute judicial bias), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Terance Simmons, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Children of: S. L. L. and M. J. T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Nicholas David Wivinus, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a reviewing court determines that the district court improperly excluded evidence, “the conviction will still sta nd if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” review denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
VI; 7 n.1 (Minn. 2006) (“Statements in a complaint are hearsay, implicating confrontation concerns.”); (holding that admitting a prior criminal complaint plainly violates a defendant’s confrontation rights) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. March 15, 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court 5 ultimately prevented the admission of evidence of an alternat ive perpetrator because appellant did not provide notice to the state pursuant to State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court’s rulings are not indi cative of bias, and furthermore “[a]dverse rulings by a judge, with out more, do not constitu te judicial bias.” State v. Sailee , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-96 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding that “[d]ue process requires that a judge have no actual bias against a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome,” but that “adverse rulings by a judge, without more, do not constitute judicial bias”) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a district court’s “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is a n abuse of discretion”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Donny Warren, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Due process requires that a judge have no actual bias agains t a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley , 520 U.S. 899, 904-05, 1 17 S. Ct. 1793, 1797 (1997)), review denied (Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We have said that “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is an abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a district court’s “failure to consider the Lindsey factors is an abuse of discretion”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This includes the right “to present evidence showing that an alternative perpetrator committed the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Judicial bias “Due process requires that a judge have no actual bias against a defendant or an interest in a case’s outcome.” (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1797 (1997)), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review de novo whether a defendant’s due-process right to an impartial judge was violated.” (), review denied (Minn. Mar.