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. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1.

168 citing documents.

  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
    “Misrepresentations 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. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
    We recently rejected similar reasoning, stating that “[i]t is inconsistent with our precedent and with our notion of fairness to conclude that once a defendant chooses to stipulate to evidence he was unsuccessful in getting excluded he has waived the opportunity to argue on appeal that the court erred in admitting the evidence.” , 14 n. 4 (Minn.2004).
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
    reh’g denied (Minn. Mar.
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
    “Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.”
  • Huff v. State 698 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2005
  • Huff v. State 698 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2005
    which clarified the standards for the admission of alternative *436 perpetrator evidence.
  • State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
    Because we examine the totality of the circumstances, “a collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    (denying new trial because of counsel’s “deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike”).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Jones , , 22 (Minn. 2004); State v. Darveaux , , 49 (Minn. 1982); see also Rairdon v. State , , 325 (Minn. 1996) (denying new trial because of counsel's "deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike").
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004