Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1.

168 citing documents.

State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Evidence of Hector’s prior bad acts are what we commonly refer to as “reverse-Spreigl evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is a violation of the defendant’s right to due process for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to cons ent to a warrantless search.” d 677, 687 (Minn. 2008) ( Jones II); n.3 (Minn. 2004) (Jones I) (“A passive refusal to consent to a search cannot be treated as evidence of a crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Even if the above three prongs are met, this court will correct the error “only if the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)); (“[W]e give ‘great deference to the issuing judge’s determination’ of probable cause for a search warrant.” ()); Rochefort, d at 804 (same); (“[T]he resolution, of doubtful or marginal cases should be ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.’ ” (quoting Wiley, d at 268 )).
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
See Jones, d at 684-85; -11 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis 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
“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to 14 connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.” (citations omitted).
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Joseph Simonson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Joseph Simonson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to 6 create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
As an example of *843 a “widely accepted” evidentiary rule
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
would any other exculpatory evidence.”
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
proving its inherent tendency to connect the alleged alternative perpetrator to the commission of the crime, “ ‘it is permissible to introduce evidence of a motive of the third person to commit the crime, threats by the third person, or other miscellaneous facts which would tend to prove the third person committed the act,’ in order to cast a reasonable doubt on the state’s case.” ().
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011