DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

133 citing documents.

  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
    The prosecutor is a “minister of justice” whose obligation is “to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-1.1 and commentary at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)); -02 (Minn.2001) (“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.”).
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    v. *796 Elemy, 656 F.2d 507, 508 (9th Cir.1981) (“The reasons for admitting identification statements as substantive evidence are that out-of-court identifications are believed to be more reliable than those made under the suggestive conditions prevailing at trial, and the availability of the declar-ant for cross-examination eliminates the major danger of hearsay testimony.”); -99 (Minn.2001) (holding rule 801(d)(1)(C) inapplicable to- witness’s “drive-by” identification used as substitute for l
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
    n our previous review of a district court’s determination that a prima facie showing had not been made, we said “[w]hether there is racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge is a factual determination to be made by the district court, and that determination will not be reversed absent clear proof that the state’s reason for the challenge was pre-textual.” -04 (Minn.2001) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
    The 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.” (citing State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555 , ).
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
  • Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    And it is improper for prosecutors “to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
    Minnesota Statutes § 634.04 (2002) does require that accomplice testimony be corroborated by “other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense * * But, for that section to apply, an accomplice must be a person who “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.”
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    -97 (Minn.2001) (noting that out-of-court statement may be admitted into evidence without violating Confrontation Clause if the statement is necessary and reliable); (Minn.App.
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
    1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995)
  • State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
    Johnson, d at 435 ; Merrill, d at 111 .
  • State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
    State v. Jones, 311 Minn. 472, 473
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
    Our review of this evidentiary issue is for an abuse of discretion, and any error is subject to harmless error analysis, Crane, 476 U.S. at 691 , 106 S.Ct.