Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101.
- State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
- State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
-
State v. Leake
699 N.W.2d 312
Minn. 2005
Leake, however, (Moore I), to argue that the verdicts in this case are legally inconsistent.
- In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
- State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
- State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
- State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
- State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Blooflat 671 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Blooflat 671 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
-
State v. Reiners
664 N.W.2d 826
Minn. 2003
(holding that the state's peremptory challenge of the only African-American prospective juror in a panel of sixty established a prima facie case of discrimination but that the juror's prior arrest record rebutted the prima facie case and defeated the Batson objection).
- State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
- State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
-
State v. Litzau
650 N.W.2d 177
Minn. 2002
“All that is needed to justify an in camera inquiry is a minimal showing of a basis for inquiry but something more than mere speculation by the defendant that examination of the informant might be helpful.”
- State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
- State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
- State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
- State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002