Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spann, 574 N.W.2d 47.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see State v. Jaros , , 472 (Minn. 2019) (“ We generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper testimony is presented to the jury unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantl
Followed State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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. Griffin , , 262-63 (Minn. 2016) (affirming the denial of a mistrial motion based on an improper question by prosecutor); Bahtuoh , d at 819-20 (affirming the denial of a mistrial motion based on grand-jury testimony being read into the record); State v. Spann , , 53 (Minn. 1998) (affirming the denial of a mistrial motion based on the prosecution's failure to disclose newly discovered oral statements before questioning a witness about them).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Spann , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A mistrial should only be granted if “there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different.” d 47, 53 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (deter mining that no relief was warranted where defendant’s substantial rights were not affected, even upon an assumption of plain error); State v. Spann , (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial ab sent a showing that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different ab sent a discovery violation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct in failing to provide discovery).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (ruling no error occurred where disclosure of defendant’s past drug use was inadvertent and “[m]ore importantly, events that occurred later in trial eliminated any prejudice”); (declining to grant mistrial absent a showing that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different); (discerning no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial where prejudice was minimal).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A mistrial should not be granted unless there is a “reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different.” d 47, 53 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
(articulating the standard for declaring a mistrial).
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A mistrial should not granted “unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different.”
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006