Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shoen, 578 N.W.2d 708.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Carridine, d at 148 (holding that alleged prosecutorial error did not affect defendant’s substantial rights where jury was properly instructed); Pendleton, d at 509 (holding that prosecutorial misconduct may be cured by district court instruction); (presuming that jurors follow the district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that reviewing courts presume that jurors follow the district court’s instructions “to disregard any statement of law by an attorney that differed from that of the court”); -27 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that prosecutor’s error in misstatement of p
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This presumption remains with him unless and until he has been proven guilty.” In addition, the district court told the jury, “If an attorney’s argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law that I give you, guess what, you disregard the law they give you and follow the law that I give you.” (holding that this court presumes that the jurors follow the district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because the use of restraints is “an inherently prejudicial practice,” it is constitutionally permissible “only when justified by an essential state interest specific to each trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(reviewing court will presume that jurors follow the district court’s instructions).
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(reviewing court will presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions).
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, (remanding for a Schwartz hearing to determine whether *201 the improper use of leg restraint on the defendant prejudiced the jury).
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (noting that prosecutor’s argument consistent with state’s theory of case reflected trial strategy, not prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-16 (Minn.1998) (stating harmless-error analysis inherently requires consideration of the nature and extent of error before considering whether conviction was “surely unattributable” to error).
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
But we have previously recognized that because of the prejudice involved in having the defendant restrained, to be constitutionally permissible the restraint must be “justified by an essential state interest specific to each trial.” (quoting Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69 , 106 S.Ct.
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Tanghe 672 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Tanghe 672 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-14 (Minn.1998) (examining record when findings deficient on need for prisoner restraints); -25 (Minn.1992) (discussing independent examination of record when postconviction court fails to make required findings).
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
1657 ; ); see also Horner, d at 795 (“While we give ‘due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges,’ we review de novo the legal conclusion of whether probable cause existed.”).
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
see also Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
See State v. Shoen (Shoen I), -15 (Minn.1998).
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
Further, any error in ordering restraint “is not prejudicial absent evidence that the jury knew [the defendant] was wearing the restraint.” ().
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Lee 585 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1998
State v. Lee 585 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1998
State v. Wiernasz 584 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1998
State v. Wiernasz 584 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1998
Shoen, we hold that the police statement about the results of the lie detector test did not convert the interrogation into a custodial interrogation.
Mankato Free Press Co. v. Dempsey 581 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1998
Mankato Free Press Co. v. Dempsey 581 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1998
we remanded to the district court for a Schwartz hearing for the purpose of determining whether the jurors in Mr. Shoen’s trial on a murder charge were aware that he was wearing a leg restraint during the trial.