Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720.

221 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We reverse a district court’s denial of a new trial motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct “only when the [prosecutor’s] misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” - 28 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A jury is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of [his or her] actions.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A jury is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.” State v. Johnson, 6 (citation omitted).
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A [fact-finder] is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.” (citations omitted).
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that “[w]e give great deference to the district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, recognizing that the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the [district] court may consider”); (stating that appellate courts give considerable deference to district *210 court findings on whether a peremptory-challenge was motivated by prohibited discriminatory intent because the issue typically requires an evaluation of the prosecutor’s credibility).
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
(noting that the jury instruction is a factor in finding that any error in the prosecutor’s statement is nonprejudicial); (observing that the court assumes that the jury follows a district court’s instruction); (
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
(concluding that argument based on facts not in evidence did not prejudice the defendant, in part, because the jury was instructed that the arguments of counsel were not evidence).
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Evidence that merely shows the commission of the crime or the circumstances thereof is not sufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony.”
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
Moreover, we have held that a prosecutor commits misconduct if he “call[s] a type of defense ‘soddy,’ or * * * suggests] that jurors would be ‘suckers’ if they believed the defense.” (internal citations and emphasis omitted).
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Prosecutorial Misconduct A conviction may be reversed for prosecutorial misconduct only “when the misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” -28 (Minn.2000).
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
This court will grant a new trial *799 only when “the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (-28 (Minn.2000)).
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004