Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Race v. State, 417 N.W.2d 264.

47 citing documents.

Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
A22-0979 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Armando DeLaCruz, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
John Patrick Murphy, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
t likely to produce a result more favorable to the petitioner because the remaining witnesses had not recanted); (stating a postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it found new evidence would not produce a result more favorable to the petitioner because it conflicted with the uncontroverted evidence presented at trial); (holding a postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it found “contradictory” evidence would not produce a result more favorable to the petitioner).
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
for its articulation of the test.
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
e time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the new evidence was not because of a lack of diligence; (3) “the evidence is material (or as we have sometimes said, is not impeaching, cumulative or doubtful)”; and (4) the evidence will probably produce an acquittal at a retrial or a more favorable result for the [petitioner], ().
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
im or his counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the new evidence was not because of a lack of diligence; (3) “the evidence is material (or as we have sometimes said, is not impeaching, cumulative or doubtful)”; and (4) the evidence will probably produce an acquittal at a retrial or a more favorable result for the [petitioner], Pippitt, d at 226 ().
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
for all other newly-discovered evidence should be applied.
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
ased on newly discovered evidence if he establishes (1) “that the evidence was not known to him or his counsel at the time of trial,” (2) “that his failure to learn of it before trial was not due to lack of diligence,” (3) “that the evidence is material,” and (4) “that the evidence will probably produce either an acquittal at a retrial or a result more favorable to the petitioner.”
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
(concluding that in case where newly-discovered evidence is falsified trial testimony, the traditional requirement that a petitioner be taken by surprise at trial or not have known of the falsity of the testimony until after trial is not an absol
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
(Race III) ( (Race II)).
Race v. State 504 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1993
Race v. State 504 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1993
["Race /”] *216 (Minn. 1987) ["Race II"].
Wayne v. State 498 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1993
Wayne v. State 498 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1993
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
This court reviews an appeal of a post conviction denial of a new trial under the abuse of discretion standard, and noting that the burden is on the defendant to establish the facts by a preponderance of the evidence as required by Minn.Stat.
Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
Recently, we said: Generally, in order to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must establish (1) that the evidence was not known to him or his counsel at the time of trial, (2) that his failure to learn of it before trial was not due to lack of diligence, (3) that the e
State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Further, the supreme court stated evidence used to impeach a witness is not material.
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988