Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609.

160 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Earl Jay Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ethan James Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Gary Jennissen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Turner, 137 S. Ct. at 1895 (concluding that where the record shows that 8 the undisclosed impeachment evidence was “largely cumulative of impeachment evidence petitioners already had and used at trial,” the “effect of the withheld evidence is insufficient to undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict”); (concluding that although a plea deal between a state’s witness and another county attorney’s office constituted impeachment evidence, the undisclosed impeachment evidence was not material wh
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Duane Skolte Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If we conclude that any prong is not sa tisfied, then we “need not consider the other prongs.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010) (per curiam); State v. Brown
A18-1962 A18-1963 Philip Lee Carlson (A18-1162, A18-1962), Virginia Marie Carlson (A18-1163, A18-1963) v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196 -97
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Brown , , 620 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Brown , , 620 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Bruce John Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lavell Ramone Porter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To establish a Brady violation, appellant must show: “(1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or it is impeaching; (2) the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) prejudice to the accused resulted.” (citing Pederson, d at 459).
State of Minnesota v. Glen Dale Acon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“General testimony about the workings of a gang or the types of activities in which gangs engage is not considered testimony that reaches an ultimate legal conclusion, and is often necessary to prove that a crime was committed ‘for the benefit of a gang.’” State v. Brown , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Giovanni Barrow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also State v. Brown , (concluding that 7 admission of gang-expert testimony was not plain error because “[g]eneral testimony about the workings of a gang or the types of activities in which gangs engage is not considered testimony that reaches an ultimate legal conclusion” and such testimony “is often necessary to
State of Minnesota v. Lor Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Geoffrey Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.”).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Francis Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Hector Rufino Vergara-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Autumn Blakey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Eric Deonta Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Southern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Brown , (“If [an appellate court] conclude[s] that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, [the court] need not consider the other prongs.”).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Albert Comeaux Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Ried Purinton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deirdre Elise Evavold Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Grant Lloyd Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“To establish a Brady violation, it must be true that: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpator y or it is impeaching; (2) th e evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) prejudice to the accused resulted.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Lee Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Robertson, d at 875; State v. Brown
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
A16-0648 Minn. 2017
State v. Webster 894 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2017
State v. Webster 894 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Frederick Gratz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Gene Shawnoskey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Blanshan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by