Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smallwood, 594 N.W.2d 144.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining, “if the evidence sought to be admitted is questionable, a prosecutor should obtain a ruling from the trial court before commenting on the evidence”); (warning prosecuting attorneys not to refer to evidence without good-faith
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
6 Smallwood, 155 (Minn. 1999) (concluding officers had reasonable suspicion when car was stopped wit h headlights off leaving the area of the crime within two minutes of report and suspect matched general description).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that an appellate court “will not interfe re with a [district] court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
While the district court’s determination that consent was free and voluntary is a finding of fact that is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, Diede, d at 846, we undertake our review knowing that “a suspect’s voluntary consent to a search is a question subject to careful appellate review.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Smith also relies on State v. Nissalke, which provides that it is “‘improper for a prosecutor to refer to evidence in an opening statement without a good-faith basis for believing the evidence is admissible.’” (d 144, 150 (Minn. 1999)).
Bjorn Knudsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bjorn Knudsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(affirming district court finding that intoxication did not affect suspect’s consent to a car search when the suspect was able to communicate and participate appropriately in police encounter).
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (stating that an appellate court’s decision whether to modify a sentence is based on its “collective collegial experience in reviewing a large number of criminal appeals from all the judicial districts”) (quotation omitted); (modifying a sentenc
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
We have said that “[i]n general it is misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.”
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
The court of appeals based its decision in this case, in part
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
And while it is permissible to look beyond the statutory definition of the offense to the facts underlying a conviction when determining whether an out-of-state conviction qualifies as a violent crime, -57 (Minn.1999) (reviewing Minn.Stat.
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
is useful in determining whether statements are inadmissible under Rule 410 in the absence of an express offer to plead guilty.
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
See, (upholding the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion in limine brought after state’s opening statement).
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
See, e.g., State v. Smallwood , , 149 (Minn. 1999) (upholding the district court's grant of defendant's motion in limine brought after state's opening statement).
State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that a reviewing court “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.”).
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
(citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
151 n. 4 (Minn.1999); Hibbing Educ.