Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235.

234 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Hector Rufino Vergara-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Devon Maurice Goode Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[E]vidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.”
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abdulaziz Mohamed Abukar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “[i]n cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences are rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-50 (Minn. 2014) (holding that reviewing courts assume that jurors follow a court’s instruction).
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
-55 (Minn.2014) ( Fedziuk v. Comm'r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In State v. Ali, the supreme court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony to explain why surveillance videotapes were “digitally manipulated to clarify details in the tape[s].” –52 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“In cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences are rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”).
Jeffrey Edward Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Edward Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because the postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, [an appellate court] review[s the] credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard.” (quotation and citation omitted); (“In order for a credibility determination to be clearly erroneous, we must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Expert testimony is only admissible if the testimony will help the trier of fact in evaluating evidence or resolving factual issues.” –52 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that courts “will not review” ineffective-assistance claims that “raise matters of trial strategy”).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Expert testimony is only admissible if the testimony will help the trier of fact in evaluating evidence or resolving factual issues.” –52 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In other words, “a court has inherent judicial authority to engage in activities that are necessary to the performance of judicial functions, but ‘the judiciary is not to resort to inherent authority when doing so would not respect the equally unique authority of another branch of government.’” d 235, 254 (Minn. 2014) (quoting M.D.T., d at 280, 282 (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
we permitted a juvenile to challenge his sentence based on Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
Because the postconviction court’s decision is consistent with our recent rulings, -58 (Minn. 2014), we affirm.
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015