Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Woodruff v. State, 608 N.W.2d 881.

58 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding state’s failure to disclose material evidence favorable to defendant violates defendant’s due-process rights); -86 (Minn. 2000) (discussing appellant’s burden when asserting a Brady violation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A discovery violation that d oes not meet the elements of a Brady violation still may be subject to sanctions or remedies, and the court is to consider “the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice with a continuance.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ot her facts tending to prove the third person committed the crime.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A19-0218 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1a(1); (discussing previous version of rule 9.01).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(6); (“To establish a Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963)] violation, appellant must show (1) that the evidence at issue was favorable to him; (2) that the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state; and (3) that he was thereby prejudiced.”).
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Conduct 3.7, a lawyer is barred “from acting as an advocate in cases where the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.” Woodruff v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To establish a Brady violation, [an] appellant must show (1) that the evidence at issue was favorable to him; (2) that the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state; and (3) that he was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But without a showing of prejudice, “allegations regarding an inadequate police investigat ion do not amount to a Brady violation.” Woodruff v. State
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Evidence of Hector’s prior bad acts are what we commonly refer to as “reverse-Spreigl evidence.” ().
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
We review a postconviction court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we will not set aside a postconviction court’s factual findings unless they are clearly errone *813 ous
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
(citing Johnson, d at 433-34 ); see also Jones, d at 16-17 .
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
We view the evi *539 dence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume “that the jury disbelieved any testimony in conflict with the result reached.”
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
(citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 , 119 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-86 (Minn.2000) (upholding post-conviction court’s refusal to grant defendant’s request for new trial as sanction for state’s discovery violation).