Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. 2026
(stating that “[t]he right of confrontation is fundamental under both the federal and state constitutions”), –97 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (concluding that two 6 robberies were related because they were separated by minutes in time and one block in distance and they shared the “objective of obtaining money through robbery”); (concluding that the motivation of a single criminal obj
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-18 (Minn. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by , State v. Dahlin , -96 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-17, 20 (Minn. 1996) (affirming denial of severance motion where defendant was charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated robbery after attempting to rob two different victims at gunpoint within a few blocks and minutes of each other); 490-91 (Minn. App. 2002) (aff
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
( abrogated in part on other grounds, -96 (Minn. 2005)).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
abrogated in part on other grounds by Dahlin, d at 595-96 .
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
we upheld consecutive sentences for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, where the crimes involved innocent victims targeted at random and a shooting rampage that threatened innocent bystanders.
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-19 (Minn.1996) (applying U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that non-self-inculpatory portions of broader self-inculpatory statement are inadmissible as statements against interest).
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Because we interpret the Confrontation Clause of the Minnesota Constitution identically to the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution, the Confrontation Clause of the Minnesota Constitution applies in jury sentencing trials as well.
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
(holding the admission of an accomplice’s plea transcript under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
153 , 145 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999)
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Scacchetti 690 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Criticized State v. Scacchetti 690 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Minn. Const. art. I, § 6
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“The right of confrontation is fundamental under both the federal and state constitutions, and the analysis is the same under both.”
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
(hereinafter Dukes I)- We affirmed the conviction.
State v. Amos 658 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2003
State v. Amos 658 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2003
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
See, -16, 20 (Minn.1996) (affirming conviction when appellant shot and killed driver of car appellant was robbing); -45 (Minn.1995); (affirming conviction when appellant and others set out to rob gas station and shot and killed two peo
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
A therefore, we will set out only the facts relevant to this appeal.
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
See Minn. Const, art. I, § 6
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In deciding whether two crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, the focus is on the time and place of the crimes, with the additional consideration of “whether the segments of conduct involved were motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (“In determining whether thei*e should be separate trials for separate charges, we look to how the offenses were related in time and geographic proximity and at whether the actor was motivated by a single criminal objective.”).