Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Prtine, 799 N.W.2d 594.

10 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he factual 15 elements of this legal question related to the underlying facts and circumstances of the case are reviewed for clear error.”).
John Lee Littlejohn, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When evaluating whether a concession was an understandable strategy, we consider “whether it would be objectively reasonable to [concede], given the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine acquiescence , see i d., in part because “wh ether it is an understandable trial strategy to concede guilt depends on whether it would be objectively reasonable to do so, given the facts and circumstances of the particular case .” (Prtine II).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A18-1846 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Prtine , (stating that it might be a reasonable strategy “to admit that defendant is guilty of one of two charges in the hope of increasing his credibility with the jury”).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]t is an understandable trial strategy to concede an intent to kill in order to try to build credibility with the jury in the hope of avoiding conviction on the first-degree premeditated murder charge”).
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Criticized State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
was unreasonable, –600 (Minn. 2011) (rejecting argument that “[counsel’s concession] was not an understandable trial strategy,” regardless of whether “the concession was based on trial counsel’s fundamental misunderstanding of the law,” because “the issue of whether [the concession] was an understandable trial strategy .