Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782.

115 citing documents.

State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. SOSNOWICZ 270 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Jacobs 791 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jacobs 791 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(quotation omitted); see Adair v. State, Dept of Educ., 474 Mich.
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
“We afford great deference to a [postconvietion] court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Dukes, d at 251
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
We said in State v. Bradford that “[arguments of counsel must not speculate about events occurring at the time of the killing absent a factual basis in the record.”
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
whether the wounds could or could not have been the result of accident, the cause of death, and so forth.” Id.; (holding that a medical examiner’s opinion that the manner of death was homicide was helpful to the jury’s determination of whether a fatal gunshot wound was self-inflicted or inflicted by another).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
See MacLennan, d at 236 ; Griese, d at 428 .
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
-90 (Minn.1995) (determining, under the pre-Crawford standard, that affidavits in support of murder victim’s OFP were sufficiently trustworthy to avoid violation of the Confrontation Clause); -98 (Minn.2000) (concluding that the record provided too little information to determine whether affidavits in support of an OFP were sufficiently trustworthy to satisfy hearsay rules, but that any error made in the admission of the affidavits at trial was harmless).
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
It was also improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury “this is what occurs.” (speculating about events with no factual basis in record is misconduct).
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
Under this exception, evidence is admissible when it was “in plain view, there was a prior justification for an intrusion, the discovery was inadvertent, and there was probable cause to believe that the items seized were immediately apparent evidence of crime.” State *337 v. Bradford, (quotation omitted).
State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(concluding that prosecutor’s use of “I submit” was an interpretation of the evidence and, *865 therefore, not misconduct); (concluding that prefacing argument with “the state submits” is not an injection of personal opinion and does not constitute mi
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
The issuing judge’s determination must be based on “the factual allegations contained in the affidavit in support of the warrant application and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
Although "heat of passion is not a mitigating circumstance” to the crime of first-degree domestic abuse murder (the crime for which *910 the district court sentenced Cram), it is a lesser included offense to second degree intentional murder (the other crime the district court found that Cram committed).
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
We will not grant a new trial if the misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict is “surely unattributable to the error.” 800 (Minn.2000) (quotation omitted).
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
reh’g denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
-40 (Minn.2001); -51 (Minn.1996); -95 (Minn.1990) (Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
(holding that homicide victim’s statements about what the defendant had done to her did not fall within this hearsay exception because they did not get to the declarant’s state of mind); Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002