Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Peterson, 530 N.W.2d 843.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jorge Luis Sandoval Minn. Ct. App. 2026
[and] drew the jury’s 13 attention away from the particular facts of this case to broader societal problems.”
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Benard Mogaka Okero Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Slade Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Sean Anthony Porter Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Clifford Lamont Lea Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peterson, -49 (Minn. App. 1995).
State of Minnesota v. Massoud Amin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (quoting State v. Post , ).
State of Minnesota v. Abner Otwoma Momanyi Minn. Ct. App. 2020
to send a message generally affirming the allegations of children”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); State v. Peterson , (holding that it was improper for the prosecutor to “coerce or urge” jurors to convict the defendant to send a message to victims “that we will protect you”).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Vance Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Peterson, (finding cumulative error when the re were multiple and varied trial errors).
State of Minnesota v. Ethan James Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 339 (concluding that district court coerced jury into unanimous verdict by saying jury must “make a decision on this”); State v. Peterson , (concluding that district court coerced jury into unanimous verdict by saying jury would be sequestered until reaching unanimous verdict).
State of Minnesota v. LC Monroe Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Abraham Deng Woi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Peterson , (concluding a prosecutor’s remarks about multiple child victims, when the defendant was only charged with assaulting one victim, were improper)
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, -48 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that the cumulative effect of the following errors required reversal: the district court instructed the jury to continue deliberating until it reached a unanimous verdict; the defendant’s confrontation rights were violated; and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closin
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that the cumulative effect of 12 errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial); (concluding that the cumulative effect of three errors required reversal).
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(concluding that the cumulative effect of the following errors required reversal: district court instructed jury to continue deliberating until they reached a unanimous verdict; appellant’s confrontation rights were violated; and prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, which turned Spreigl e
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(concluding that prosecutor’s argument imploring jury not to “turn your back on these children” was prosecutorial misconduct because it was intended to send a message rather than focus on the particular facts of the case to determine whether the accused is guilty).
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(instruction that jury would be sequestered until it reached a verdict is coercive and reversible error); (instruction that jury must reach a unanimous verdict is reversible error), review denied (Minn. Feb.