Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. DeWald, 463 N.W.2d 741.

118 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that acquittal of some charges demonstrates that the jury conscientiously considered the evidence rather than resorting to passion or prejudice).
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Closing arguments may be based on “the evidence presented at trial and inferences reasonably drawn from that evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Information supporting probable cause may not be stale “even after the passage of several months where the items sought are of enduring utility to their taker.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that acquittal of some charges demonstrates that the jury conscientiously considered the evidence rather than resorting to passion or prejudice).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A prosecutor’s closing 14 argument should be based on the evidence presented at trial and inferences reasonably drawn from that evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining that a jury’s acquittal of one count showed that the jury was not prejudicially influenced by prosecutorial misconduct).
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A prosecutor’s closing argument should be based on the evidence presented at trial and inferences reasonably drawn from that evidence.”
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
We have said that “[p]robable cause exists where ‘the facts available to the officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of crime.’ ” (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“A prosecutor’s closing argument should be based on the evidence presented at trial and inferences reasonably drawn from that evidence.”
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Probable cause exists where ‘the facts available to the officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of crime.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct.
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. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
Under the helpfulness test, this court “has not allowed ultimate conclusion testimony which embraces legal conclusions or terms of art.” see also Saldana, d at 231 & n. 5 (stating that while an expert may “testify to observations of physical and emotional conditions,” the doctor’s testimony that victim had been “raped” was “a legal conclusion which was of no use to the jury”); Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(prosecu-torial misconduct to use convictions admitted for impeachment purposes to attack character); Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
Also, the jury determines the credibility and weight given to the testimony of individual witnesses.” (citations- and internal quotations omitted).
State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
-45 (Minn.1990); -41 (Minn.1994).
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
“The standard of review in an insufficiency-of-evidence appeal is whether, viewing the evidence and any reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the [verdict], the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (d *750 527, 531 (Minn.1989) (citation omitted)).
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Moreover, the jury’s acquittal of appellant for second-degree intentional murder indicates that “members of the jury were not unduly inflamed by the prosecutor’s comments.”
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
-45 (Minn.1990); see also Minn.R.Evid.