Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 811 N.W.2d 136.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. William Robert Sathre Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An identification need not be positive and certain to support a conviction—it is sufficient if a witness testifies that in his belief, opinion, and judgment the defendant is the one he saw commit the crime.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Nyapuot Dech Kuek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 required.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Robert Voeller Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Deshawn Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 136, 148 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Decarieon Dupra Scurlock Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Clyde Harry Barr, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “[i]n Minnesota, delays beyond 60 days from the date of demand raise a presumption that a violation has occurred.” Windish, d at 315-16; (“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Brian Ford Dowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
11 447 U.S. at 235-59, 100 S. Ct. at 2127-30; review denied (Minn. March 28, 2012); (finding no prosecutorial misconduct by using defendant’s pre-Miranda silence in closing argument when the purpose was “to question the reasonableness and credibility of his testimony, not
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, “delays beyond 60 days from the date of demand raise a presumption that a violation has occurred.” Windish, d at 315 -16; (“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State 11 v. Johnson, 148 (Minn. App. 2012) (holding that defendant’s silence following the victim’s direct question , “Why did you beat me?
Michelle Lee Koester v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Johnson , , 148 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that this court reviews admission of evidence under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Seekou Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts consider “the impact on both the victim of the crime as well as the trauma to the eyewitnesses who would be compelled to testify at multiple trials.” State v. Johnson , ().
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Berdell Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
B. Impact on the victim Appellate courts consider “the impact on both the victim of the crime as well as the trauma to the eyewitnesses who would be compelled to testify at multiple trials.” (d 351, 371 (Minn. 2005)).
State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Chol Alfred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. Length of delay “Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy - trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Lee Villa Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See e.g., State v. Johnson , -45 (Minn. App. 2012) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Haukoos Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. Length of the delay “Under Minnesota law, a delay of more th an 60 days from the date of the speedy- trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, , 146 n.2 (Minn. App. 2012) (addressing only the Fifth Amendment when appellant mentioned article I, section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution in his brief, but raised only Fifth-Amendment arguments), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kauser Mohamoud Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
[a] victim of being required to testify in separate trials.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.”); n.2 (Minn. App. 2012) (addressing only Fifth Amendment when appellant mentioned article I, section 7, of Minnesota Constitution in his brief but based arguments only on Fifth Amendment), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A speedy-trial challenge presents a constitutional question subject to de novo review.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Under Minnesota law, a delay of more than 60 days from the date of the speedy-trial demand is presumptively prejudicial, triggering review of the remaining three factors.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Mar.