Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281.

280 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Juan Silva Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Foster Cole Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See S tate v. Hallmark , (setting forth procedure to be followed if a district court erroneously enters judgment of conviction on an offense and a lesser-included offense).
A20-0594 State of Minnesota v. Sharmake Mohamed Aden, (A20-0584), Casey James Eide, (A20-0592), Tiesha Monique Moore, (A20-0594), Midwest … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Candy Michelle Ostlund v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Wally Hilborn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Michael-Paul Aaron Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its de cision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quota tion omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Greshonda Machell Phillips, Midwest Bonding LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic an d the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Ryan Tverberg Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(a district court abuses its discretion when the decision in question is “based on an erroneous review of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record”).
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district cour t abuses its discretion if its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Jordyn Lynn Hjeldness Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Breslan Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Sinatra Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2020
St. Louis County Thissen, J. Took no part, Moore, J. State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
d 281, 302 (Minn. 2019); Bias, d at 486–87.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Richard Wersinger, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2020
D E C I S I O N “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretio n.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Anthony Cruz Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Heriberto Natividad Campos, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Casey Belden Hoskins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Hallmark , –95 (Minn. 2019) (examining a hearsay exception when the district court failed to do so).
State of Minnesota v. Fue Her Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 that discretion “when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2019
We considered, and rejected, a similar argument in State v. Hallmark, stating that “section 611.02 does not require a defendant found guilty of two crimes to be sentenced on the less er of the two crimes.” .9 In Hallmark, the defendant was found guilty of first -degree premeditated murder and second -degree Because we liberally construe postconviction petitions, we will address this issue.
State of Minnesota v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And “[a] district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. TreJuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jon Marvin Manypenny Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019).
State of Minnesota v. Christian Dulue Flah Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Gotchie Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , State v. Hallmark , , 300 (Minn. 2019) (stating that a defendant who asserted a claim of juror bias based on exposure to "the case through the internet, newspapers, and television media," must "demonstrate that at least one juror was 'actually biased' against him ...."