DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Booker, 348 N.W.2d 753.

29 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    23, 1987); -56 (Minn. 1984) (holding that appellant forfeited a hearsay challenge to the presentence investigation report on which appellant’s sentence was based because appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing to challenge the information in the report).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (concluding that victim’s emotional condition was relevant as it “tended to corroborate the victim’s testimony”); see also Fraga, d at 274 ( concluding evidence of erectile -dysfunction medication relevant in murder and sexual assault trial to counter defendant’s claim that he could not
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Id.; 55-56 (Minn. 1984) (affirming sentence and holding appellant forfeited any hearsay challenge to the PSI because he did not request an evidentiary hearing).
  • 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 v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The general standard for determining whether a new trial is warranted due to prosecutorial misconduct is whether the misconduct, viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be “inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    With respect to claims of prosecutorial misconduct arising out of closing argument, we consider the closing argument as a whole rather than focus on particular “phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” ().
  • State v. Braylock 501 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Braylock 501 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1993
    (allegedly improper statements must be examined within the context of entire summation).
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The general standard for determining whether a new trial is warranted due to prosecutorial misconduct was recently stated as follows: [Wjhether “the misconduct, viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Barber 372 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Barber 372 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Theisen 363 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Theisen 363 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984