DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Peterson, -49 (Minn. App. 1995).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See, (quoting State v. Post , ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Peterson, (finding cumulative error when the re were multiple and varied trial errors).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, 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.