Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631.

106 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court has broad discretion in evidentiary matters.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 631, 640 (Minn. 2012) (noting distinction “between playing a knowing role in the crime and mere presence at the scene, inaction, knowledge and passive acquiescence” (quotation omitted)); Pendleton, d at 907 (stating that a witness must play a knowing role in the crime to be an accomplice and that mere presence
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Prior bad act evidence can be unfairly prejudicial if it is used by the jury for an improper purpose, such as proof of a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offense or general propensity for violence.”
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
If all three of these requirements are met, we then assess whether reversal is required to ensure “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 9 judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[a] Miranda warning is required if a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation”); (stating that the right to counsel “attaches when the state initiates adversary judicial proceedings against an accused”).
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An accomplice is generally a person who “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
contends that the district court erred in its custody analysis because the deputies controlled his movements and “never told him that he was free to leave and not under arrest.” But the custody analysis does not depend on “merely whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
(citing State v. 23 Palubicki, ).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally, the test for whether a particular witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because there was no objection to this instruction at trial, we again review for plain error, using the same three- 8 step test, Griller, d at 740.
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Failure to object to jury instructions may result in waiver of the issue on appeal,” “[b]ut [an appellate court has] discretion to review instructions not objected to at trial if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, e.g., Sterling, d at 168
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A Miranda warning is required if a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation.” d 631, 637 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s “refusal to give a requested jury instruction.”
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
Explained State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
If the first three prongs of the plain-error standard are met, we then assess whether reversal is required to ensure “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted); (citing Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.