Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627.

123 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that parties agreed to waive 14-day statutory requirement to impanel grand jury).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The decision of which witnesses to call is part of trial tactics and “lies within the proper discretion of trial counsel.”
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Deciding the credibility of witnesses is generally the exclusive province of the [fact-finder].”).
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation and citation omitted).
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that matters of trial strategy lie within the discretion of trial counsel and will not be second-guessed by appellate courts); Case, d at 800 (stating that “counsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues.”).
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But all of these are matters of trial strategy, and appellate courts “do not second- guess trial counsel’s decisions about trial strategy.” n.3 (Minn. 2013); (decisions such as what evidence to present, what witnesses to call, what objections to make, and what information to include in opening and closing statements are left to counsel’s discretion).
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
State v. Doppler (Doppler I)
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
We have repeatedly recognized that when the claim is that the evidence is not sufficient, *73 “our review is limited to ascertaining whether under the evidence contained in the record the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965); (“When considering whether the evidence in a case is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we examine the evidence presented in the record, along with legitimate inferences from that eviden
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(discussing the reluctance of appellate courts to second-guess trial strategy, including what investigation to undertake).
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
(“[A] defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that his counsel’s performance ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But “[w]hat evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” ().
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Objective reasonableness requires that an attorney exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under the circumstances.” (
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
“What evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” ().
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
(concluding that an attorney's decision not to focus on intoxication as a defense and failure to request an intoxication jury instruction was a matter of trial strategy); (stating that an attorney's decision not to request a cautionary instruction "regar
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
at 776 ; (holding that a decision to focus on self defense rather than intoxication as a defense was a matter of trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[A]n attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“[A]n attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003