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. Stewart, 514 N.W.2d 559.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (stating that photographs can be relevant to “allow the jury to better visualize .
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Appellant’s prima facie showing Under the first step of the Batson test, the defendant may establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination “by showing that one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.”
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
    We have held that “[a] trial court’s admission of physical evidence will be upheld unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (); (reviewing the admission of evidence under the abuse-of-discretion standard).
  • State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
    In State v. Stewart, we concluded that “while the trial court’s duty to rule on the [Batson ] challenge is important, a new trial is not automatic where the court fails to rule explicitly.”
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    We have stated that “[a] prima facie case of racial [or gender] discrimination is established by showing that one or more members of a racial group [or gender classification] have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race [or gender].”
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
    We have stated the “[a] prima facie case of racial discrimination is established by showing that one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 84 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
    “A prima facie case of racial discrimination is established by showing that one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” Where, as here, the trial court proceeded to the