Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719.

90 citing documents.

Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
10 said that, “[l]awyers representing appellants should be encouraged to limit their contentions on appeal at least to those which may legitimately be regarded as debatable.” (alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
While we have recognized that, under certain circumstances, affidavits from third parties have sufficient indicia of trustworthiness, d 719, 732-34 (Minn. 2010), Morley’s affidavit summarizing Brown’s interview does not contain such indicia.
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A]ccomplice liability is a theory of criminal liability, not an element of a criminal offense or separate crime.” –730 (Minn. 2010); (stating that “[t]here is no separate offense of ‘aiding and abetting’ .
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
See Martin, d at 744 (holding that the second prong was satisfied when the allegedly false testimony constituted the “only direct evidence” identifying the defendant as one of the shooters); (noting that the State had “little other direct evidence”); (noting that the recanting witness was the only eyewitness to the shooting who testified); Opsahl, d at 424 (concluding the second Larrison prong was met when the recanted test
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
-20 (Minn.2012); -37 (Minn.2010).
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Dobbins v. State (Dobbins II)
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
§ 590.04 (2012), we have an “obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
§ 590.01 (2012), we conduct “ ‘a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” (); *82
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
(reviewing the denial of a postconviction evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion).
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
court abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.’ ” (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by