Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gatson, 801 N.W.2d 134.

158 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Hearsay is inadmissible unless an exception applies.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
We presume that jurors follow the trial court’s instructions, and Whitson has not provided evidence or persuasive argument that the jury disregarded this instruction and the parties’ stipulation.
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“If the defendant seeks to establish a superseding cause, the intervening conduct must be the sole cause of the end result.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
“At this second step, the focus of the inquiry is on the facial validity of the explanation; therefore, the prosecutor’s reason will be deemed race-neutral unless discriminatory intent is inherent.” see also Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1771 (1995).
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The harassment restraining order is offered in evidence only to establish its existence, not to establish the basis for it.” Appellate courts “presume that juries follow instructions given by the court and thereby recognize the effectiveness of curative instructions.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We presume that juries follow the court’s instructions, and we presume that the jury in Michalec’s case followed the district court’s cautionary instruction.
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying abuse-of-discretion standard to review of new-trial motion).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“At this second step, the focus of the inquiry is on the facial validity of the explanation; therefore the prosecutor’s reason will be deemed race-neutral unless discriminatory intent is inherent.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson 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
Parties may challenge unobjected-to jury instructions that contain errors of fundamental law in a motion for a new trial, –47 (Minn. 2011) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
“If the defendant seeks to establish a superseding *5 cause, ‘the intervening conduct must be the sole cause of the end result.’ ” (quoting Olson, d at 534 ).