Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carney, 649 N.W.2d 455.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that admission of picture showing victim with his family was permissible spark-of-life evidence); Buggs, d at 342 (concluding that prosecutor’s presentation of victim as a “thoughtful, friendly, hard-working” mother of a young child, and showing victim’s picture before and af
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Johnson, d at 626 (reviewing denial of a heat-of-passion instruction, appellate courts “look for a heat of passion that clouds a defendant’s reason and weakens his willpower” and “[a]nger alone is not enough”) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 455, 461 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1002; d 455, 463 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
No plain error occurred because a photograph is admissible to “show the ‘spark of life’ and to present the victim as a human being.”
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
(holding that as a matter of law there was no rational basis for jury to find that the killing was in the heat of passion); (holding that as a matter of law there was “no rational basis for a jury to find that [the defendant] killed [the victim] in the
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial); (holding that prosecutor’s attempt to present murder victim as a thoughtful, friendly, hard-working indi
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003