Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Race v. State, 417 N.W.2d 264.
- Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
- Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0966), and Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0979), vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota 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