Cited by

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

157 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
16 Brady violation “A failure by the State to disclose material, exculpatory evidence justifies a new trial.” (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87–88, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196–97 (1963)).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brady violation “A failure by the State to disclose material, exculpatory evidence justifies a new trial.” (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 13 U.S. 83, 87–88, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196–97 (1963)).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
See, (affirming the admission of gang testimony in which the expert described Minneapolis gangs, including their participation in criminal activities); McDaniel, d at 748-49 (affirming the admission of similar testimony).
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
Her argument overlooks the fact that “[n]ot all courtroom restrictions implicate a defendant’s right to a public trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In addition, ‘a public trial encourages witnesses to come forward and discourages perjury.’” (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 46, 104 S. Ct. at 2215).
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
“Whether the right to a public trial has been violated is a constitutional issue that we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A Brady violation exists if “(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.”
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A Brady violation exists if “(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 7 to the accused resulted.”
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou 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
d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang, Appellant.State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang, Appellant.State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013