Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks, 875 N.W.2d 338.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although Macedo argues on appeal that he was prejudiced due to the delay, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To support her contention that this restriction on her closing argument was an abuse of discretion, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(Minn. 1993) (“In closing arguments, the prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record and is free to make arguments in anticipation of the defense closing argument.”), rev. granted (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. V. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
y dismiss the complaint, indictment, or tab charge if the prosecutor has unnecessarily delayed bringing the defendant to trial.” In State v. Banks, this court held that rule 30.02 “applies to claims of pre-charge delay” and that to obtain a dismissal under rule 30.02 based on a claim of unnecessary pre-charge delay, “a defendant must demonstrate that he has suffered prejudice by the delay.” 341 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. granted (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
345 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Banks , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Furthermore, the state “is free to make arguments in anticipation of the defense closing argument.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
On the other hand, the state “is free to make arguments in anticipation of the defense closing argument.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Banks , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Anthony Pitts, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To warrant reversal for a new trial, the prosecutor’s misconduct—placed into the context of the entire trial —must be so serious and prejudicial that it impairs a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To warrant reversal for a new trial, the prosecutor’s misconduct—placed into the context of the entire trial—must be so serious and prejudicial that it impairs a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” d 338, 348 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To warrant reversal, “the prosecutor’s misconduct—placed into the context of the entire trial— must be so serious and prejudicial that it impairs a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“For objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, this court applies a two-tiered harmless- error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”1 State v. Banks , (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: N. A. L. and D. E. S., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
15 (2018) (stating “may” is permissive) ; (noting that the use of “may” in a statute “gives the district court discretion”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To warrant reversal for a new trial, the prosecutor’s misconduct—placed into the context of the entire trial—must be so serious and prejudicial that it impairs a person ’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” d 338, 348 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To warrant reversal for a new trial, the prosecutor’s misconduct—placed into the context of the entire trial —must be so serious and prejudicial that it impairs a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- 48 (Minn. 1985); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
338 (Minn. App. 2015); A.S.E., d at 517.
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 338, 346-47 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
103(a)(1)); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Yachin Kadimel Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yachin Kadimel Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.