Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569.

179 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court reviewing a closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct “view[s] the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence to determine whether reversible error has occurred.” (quotation omitted).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
“The defendant has the right ‘to present the defendant’s version of the facts through the testimony of witnesses.’” ().
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
“[T]he State may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in its closing argument.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Calvin James Jennings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Calvin James Jennings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he challenging party has the burden of proving that the juror expressed a state of mind demonstrating actual bias towards the case or either party.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Joseph Mahne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Steven Joseph Mahne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Due process requires that every criminal defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Because we conclude that the judge's comments do not demonstrate actual bias, we need not, and do not, decide whether the alleged bias constitutes structural error.”); - 35 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
(“When reviewing a claim that a judge was partial against the defendant, we presume the judge ‘discharged his or her judicial duties properly.’”) ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “a juror’s answer must be viewed in context to determine whether it demonstrated actual bias.”
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
10 “When a defendant raises complaints about the effectiveness of appointed counsel’s representation and requests substitute counsel, the district court must grant such a request only if exceptional circumstances exist and the demand is timely and reasonably made.” (quotation omitted).
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–81 (Minn. 2013) (rejecting the argument that the judge’s scheduling comments demonstrated actual or apparent bias by showing that he considered the defendant guilty before jury deliberation).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Cortez Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Cortez Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2014
satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party.” “[T]he challenging party has the burden of proving that the juror expressed a ‘state of mind’ demonstrating ‘actual bias’ towards the case or either party.”