Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214.

155 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(including conduct that “put a number of people at risk” among reasons to justify departure).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
-25 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that our decision in Lefthand did not create an automatic exclusionary rule; instead whether the statement must be suppressed depends on “the egregiousness of the government’s action in total”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Karen Sue Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Karen Sue Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 2 Gustafson argues that the question presented—whether, after a remand, a district court may impose the same sentence after lowering the criminal history score—is an issue of law reviewed de novo.
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(determining that psychological trauma to bystander was appropriate ground for departure); (determining that district court did not abuse its discretion by relying, in part, on fact that victim was abused in front of older sister who
State of Minnesota v. Dewaun Lee Timmons-Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dewaun Lee Timmons-Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it ‘restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.’” ().
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
V; Minn. Const, art. I, § 7; (stating that witness who invokes right against self-incrimination is unavailable).
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
*764 227 (Minn.1995) (citing Williamson, 512 U.S. at 600-01 , 114 S.Ct.
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
Instead, where prosecutor violations of Rule 4.2 occur, we take “a ease-by-case approach to determining whether the state’s conduct is so egregious as to compromise the fair administration of justice.” Clark, d at 340 -41 (-25 (Minn.1995)).
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The guidelines formerly provided for permissive consecutive sentencing for “crimes against different persons.” (citing Minn. Sent.
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
We have recognized that if the foregoing precautions are employed, “a presumption exists that actual prejudice has not occurred.”
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
229 (Minn.1995) (applying transferred intent doctrine when, in the course of shooting a police officer, defendant wounded a bystander); (holding intent to kill mother is transferable to her fetus); Sutherlin, d at 239-40 (holding defendant guilty of firs
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
Criticized State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
In State v. Townsend, we said that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt means “that the weight of all the other evidence is such that it ‘justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission * * *.’ ” ().
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005