Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Marriage of Covington v. Markes, 371 N.W.2d 921.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”); (“The legal 3 Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03(k) provides that “[o]n motion, the court may allow a defense rebuttal if the court finds the prosecution made a misstatement of law or fact or an inflammatory or prejudicial statement in rebuttal.” Crain did not object to the misstat
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. B. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that we assume that the jury followed the district court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence); -27 (Minn. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-27 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Oct 11, 1985).
Dametrius Ratheal Adrian Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., State v. Strommen, 7 (telling the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, whi ch one makes the most sense ”); (saying that the presumption of innocence is a shield for the innocent but not a cloak for the guilty); State v. Trimble , (saying that the presumption of innocence is something that disappears gradually and, after a large amount of evidence is presented, disa ppears completely) , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Second, “the prejudicial effect of misconduct can be cured by proper instructions to the jury.” -27 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “the prosecutor’s misstatement of the standard [did] not require reversal beca use the [district] cour t fully instructed the jury on [the] presumption of innocence”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Trimble , -27 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “the prosecutor’s misstatement of the standard [did] not require reversal because the [district] court fully instructed the jury on [the] presumption of innocence”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-27 11 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “the prosecutor’ s misstatement of the standard [did] not require reversal because the [district] court fully instructed the jury on [the] presumption of innocence and [the defendant] argued at length against the prosecutor’s .
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
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 presumption of innocence was harmless where jury received proper instructions), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-27 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
10 review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-27 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that error in misstatement of presumption of innocence was harmless where jury received proper instructions), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-27 (Minn.App.1985) (concluding that error in misstatement of presumption of innocence was harmless where jury received proper instructions), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-27 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(noting that proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not depend on quantity of evidence), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(recognizing that even orange clothing does not necessarily suggest jail clothing), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 520 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
for rev. denied (Minn. April 17, 1987); pet.
State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota courts have considered a number of factors in determining whether to dismiss a case due to the prosecution’s loss or destruction of evidence, including the possible exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence, Bielejeski, d at 667 , the strength of the State’s case even if the evidence was available, and whether or not the destruction was intentional, -10 (Minn.1981).
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We have also stated that where a prosecutor’s misstatement of the law did not require reversal when the trial court fully and properly instructed the jury, then the conversation did not play a “substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” pet.
State v. Whaley 389 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the prosecutor’s misstatement of law did not require reversal because the trial court fully and properly instructed the jury.