Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Everett, 472 N.W.2d 864.

94 citing documents.

State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
Under the first prong of the Batson analysis, a prima facie case is established by showing (1) that a member of a racial minority has been peremptorily excluded and (2) that “circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” (citations omitted).
State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“A defendant may establish a pri-ma facie case of racial discrimination by showing that one or more members of a racial minority have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.”
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
This rule, however, “is not designed to prevent the prosecutor from arguing that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
This is so in order to prevent “exploitation of the influence of the prosecutor’s office.” (citing ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecutor’s Function, 3 — 5.8(b) and Commentary (1979)).
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
See, -69 (Minn.1991); see also Reiners, d at 831 .
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
870 n. 3 (Minn.1991) (noting that courts routinely instruct juries on this point).
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
An attorney may argue a particular witness’s credibility, but may not interject his or her personal opin-ión so as to “personally attach[] himself or herself to the cause which he or she represents.”
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
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. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(rejecting a broader concept of ''pretextual” ).
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
1769, 1773-74 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); (concluding that if there is objective basis for arrest or search, the arrest or search is lawful even if officer’s action was based on wrong ground or involved improper motive).
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
Noting that it was aware that the state patrol had initiated a program targeting motorcycle riders on their way to or from the Sturgis Rally, the trial court said that the stop was “no doubt ⅜ * * a pretext stop in that the officer’s intention was to seek a consensual search of [George’s] motorcycle and belongings.” Nevertheless, relying on *578 the trial court concluded that, based upon Yaselaar’s belief that the headlight configuration on George’s motorcycle violated Minn.Stat.
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
A trial court’s determination of the genuineness of the prosecutor’s response “is entitled to ‘great deference’ on review.” (); see also Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
State v. Davis 504 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1993
State v. Davis 504 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1993
Recently, this court declined to extend Batson to age discrimination, noting the United States Supreme Court "thus far” has limited Batson to race discrimination.
State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
See, -68 (Minn.1991), , 748 n. 2 (Minn.1990), relying on Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 , 98 S.Ct.