Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1.
-
State v. Nissalke
801 N.W.2d 82
Minn. 2011
If the defendant meets this foundational requirement, “the court must still evaluate [the alternative perpetrator] evidence under the ordinary evidentiary rules as it would any other exculpatory evidence.”
- State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
- State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
- State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
- State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
- State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
-
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA
787 N.W.2d 603
Minn. 2010
But even if the three prongs of the plain-error test are met, we may only correct the error “if the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” ().
- State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
- State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
- State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Jenkins
782 N.W.2d 211
Minn. 2010
“ ‘Misrepre *224 sentations invalidate a warrant when they are (1) deliberately or recklessly made, and (2) material to establishing probable cause, meaning probable cause could likely not be established without them.’ ” ().
- State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Lopez
778 N.W.2d 700
Minn. 2010
(“Statutory construction is ...
- State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
- State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
- State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Miller
754 N.W.2d 686
Minn. 2008
Evidence that an alternative perpetrator may have committed the crime is admissible if the evidence “has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.”
- State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Meredyk
754 N.W.2d 596
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Issues involving the authority and jurisdiction of the district court are legal issues, which we review de novo.”
- State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Jones
753 N.W.2d 677
Minn. 2008
26 (Minn. 2004) (Jones I).
- State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Holiday
749 N.W.2d 833
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.” State *840 v. Jones
- State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
- State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
- State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
- Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
- Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
- State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Palubicki
727 N.W.2d 662
Minn. 2007
4 In the restitution context, we apply the common law definition of “next of kin,” which is the “nearest living blood relation.”
- State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Dobbins
725 N.W.2d 492
Minn. 2006
‘We will correct the error only if the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” ().
- State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
- State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
- State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
- State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
- State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Skipintheday
717 N.W.2d 423
Minn. 2006
(“Every crime resonates within its community and may create innumerable victims, from the person against whom the crime was perpetrated to the unknown neighbor whose feelings of security are undermined.”).
- State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
- State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
- State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Osborne
715 N.W.2d 436
Minn. 2006
See, (prosecutorial misconduct); (erroneous jury instructions); (evidentiary errors); (responding to jury questions).
- State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
- State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
- State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Gail
713 N.W.2d 851
Minn. 2006
In addition, “[w]e afford great deference to the issuing judge’s determination on probable cause.”
- State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
- State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006