Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ture, 353 N.W.2d 502.

220 citing documents.

State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
fy, -51 (Minn.1997), or to the defendant’s failure to call witnesses, misstating the presumption of innocence, Salitros, d at 818 , or the burden of proof, interjecting the prosecutor’s personal opinion about the veracity of witnesses, inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury, Porter, d at 363-64 ; disparaging the defendant’s defense to the charges, and injecting race into the case when race is not relevant, Cabrera, d at 475 .
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
(affirming Ture's conviction for first-degree murder of Edwards).
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
§ 609.04 (2000), “[a] defendant cannot legally be convicted of two counts of first-degree murder where both convictions were for the same offense on the basis of the same act involving the same victim.” see Johnson, d at 730 .
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
Ture also argues that, after his 1981 trial for the murder of Diane Edwards, the state was required to return his property “unless otherwise subject to lawful detention.” The problem with this argument is that it ignores the statutory language that permits the seized property to be retained “so long as may be necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial.” B
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
revieio denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
(holding that when the defendant put his identity at issue by offering an .alibi, evidence of “strikingly similar” prior crimes committed by the defendant was admissible to show identity in the charged crime).
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(failure to object to prosecutor’s statements in closing argument suggests defendant did not consider them prejudicial).
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
1877, 1882 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); *698 (quoting Kirby, 406 U.S. at 689 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
Examples include: (pri- or crime used to prove identity was 10 years old but remarkably similar to charged offense; both were pharmacy robberies in which the robbers ordered the victims to lie on the floor, demanded “Class A drugs” and ordered the victims “not to push the button”); (prosecution of rape-kidnapping; upholding admission on issue of identity of evidence of prior acts that were strikingly similar and closely related in time); (holding it proper to admit other robbery to prove identit
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996