DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ray, 659 N.W.2d 736.

93 citing documents.

  • State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
    The prosecutor’s brief substantive argument based on evidence admitted only for impeachment thus did not have “significant evidentiary value to the state.” (holding that the erroneous admission of an illegally obtained statement was not harmless in part because of its eviden-tiary value).
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
    “[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that it is improper for the state to highlight a defendant’s racial or socioeconomic status as a way to put evidence in context.” ().
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
    “[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that it is improper for the state to highlight a defendant’s racial or socioeconomic status as a way to put evidence in context.” ().
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 771 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 771 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “The state bears the burden of demonstrating that any claimed waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, voluntary and intelligent.”
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
    The determination of the propriety of a State’s closing argument is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted).
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    See, (reversing in interests of justice based on “serious prosecutorial misconduct” in interjecting race into closing argument); (holding that prosecutor’s attempt to supply a race-based explanation for witnesses’ behavior improperly invited jury to apply racial and socioeconomic considerations in determining guilt).
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
    The determination of the propriety of a prosecutor’s closing argument is “ ‘within the sound discretion of *752 the trial court.’ ” ().
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    to support his argument.
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
    The determination of the propriety of a prosecutor’s closing argument is generally “ ‘within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ ” ().
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
    We have stated that where “the prosecutor invited the jurors to view the entire occurrence as ‘involving three young black males in the hood in North Minneapolis,’ a world wholly outside their own,” the remark “ask[ed] the jury to apply racial and socio-economic considerations that would deny a defendant a fair trial.”
  • State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
    -47 (Minn.2003) (noting that prosecutors should avoid inviting jurors to apply racial and socio-economic considerations).
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
    We have repeatedly stated that “it is improper to inject race into a closing argument when race is not relevant.”
  • State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
    The rights that we have allowed defendants to waive are rights personal to the defendant and include a waiver of Miranda rights, the right to counsel, State v. Blom,, the right to a jury trial, -18 (1995), Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
    (holding that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in closing argument by inviting the jury to consider that the “hood” of North Minneapolis was the defendant’s environment, a world wholly outside the jury’s own).
  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
    reh’g denied (Minn. Jan.