Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688.

133 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“In the instant case there is no evidence that [the witness] had any involvement with the crime before he hid the gun and ammunition.
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Edwin Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Edwin Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the jury to convict.” –05 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
(“[W]hen a defendant alleges that his inability to present a defense violates his constitutional rights, evi-dentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”).
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“As there is no indication the prosecutor persisted in trying to elicit testimony the court had ruled inadmissible, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct.”).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” -02 (Minn.2001).
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
Our “general test for determining ‘whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of section 634.04 is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.’ ” Lee, d at 314 ().
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
The Confrontation Clause of the Minnesota Constitution contains almost identical language, see Minn. Const, art. I, § 6 (“The accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him * * *.”), and we apply the same analysis under both Confrontation Clauses
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
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
The court, in its final instructions, told the jurors: “You are to disregard all evidence I have ordered stricken or have told you to disregard.” “It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
But “an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice.” (citing State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56 , ).
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
-02 (Minn.2001); State v. Sha, 292 Minn. 182, 185
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by