Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Bruender, 530 N.W.2d 521.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nantambu Noah Kambon, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
See State v. Bowles (Bowles I), (sua sponte remanding to the trial court to supplement the record and either “file a memorandum explaining in detail the basis for its conclusion ‘that [no Schwartz hearing was necessary because] there was no [juror] impropriety whatsoever,’ conduct a Schwartz hearing to investigate the possible j
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Our caselaw establishes that “[t]he presumption of innocence is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Where a criminal defendant has been denied the fundamental right to a fair trial, we will grant a new trial.”
Dametrius Ratheal Adrian Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The presumption of innocence is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.” State v. Bowles
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Bowles , d 521, 525 n.1 (Minn. 1995) (“[W]e will not consider any claim lacking supporting argument or authority unless prejudicial error appears obvious upon inspection of the record.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“General allegations of error, without detailing specific factual or legal errors , do not aid our review of the lower court’s proceedings.” n.1 (Minn. 1995).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Circumstan tial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corrobora te the accomplice’s testimony.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Corroboration is sufficient if it “reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and poi nts to the defendan t’s guilt in some 9 substantial degree.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Corroboration is sufficient if it “reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and points to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Circumstantial evidence supports a conviction if it is “consistent only with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” d 521, 534 (Minn. 1995).
Darek Jon Nelson v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Corroborating evidence is sufficient to convict if it reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and points to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
VI, XIV; Minn. const. art. I, §§ 6, 7; d 521, 536 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
8 “Corroborating evidence is sufficient to convict if it reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and points to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(corroborating evidence of accomplice testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict).
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Circumstantial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.”
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(remanding for supplementation of the record where the record did not reveal facts essential to appellate review).
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Circumstantial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.”
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
ly” have found the defendant guilty and consider whether the “other evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.” (concluding there was compelling evidence outside the witness’s testimony to support the finding of guilt); (concluding recantation was “not likely to produce either an acquittal or a more favorable result”).
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Corroboration is sufficient if it “reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and points to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rebeau 787 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Rebeau 787 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2010
See, (12-month suspension because attorney did not cooperate with the Director and failed to communicate with client or return unearned fees); (18-month suspension for combination of tax violations, trust account violations, and noncooperation with the Director); (one-year suspension for multiple trust account violations despite having no prior disciplinary history and cooperating with the directo
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The presumption of innocence is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.”
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The presumption of innocence is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.”
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
VI, XIV; Minn. Const, art. I, §§ 6, 7
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe 745 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2008
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
“ ‘Circumstantial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.’ ” ().
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
“Circumstantial evidence indicating the defendant’s participation in the crime is sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.” , 532 (Minn.1995) ().
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota appellate courts review the use of an anonymous jury for “actual prejudice to the defendant.”
Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
Corroborating evidence is sufficient where it “reinforces the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and points to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Varner 643 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 2002
VI, XIV; Minn. Const, art. I §§ 6, 7
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
If the district court finds that the recantation was not genuine, it “does not even need to proceed to the issue of whether the jury might have reached a different result without the witness’ testimony.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
525 n. 1 (Minn.1995) (holding that claim raised on appeal without supporting argument or legal authority will not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious from the record).
State v. Leroy 604 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
See State v. Gegen, 275 Minn. 568
State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
See, (witness credibility is an issue for the jury).
State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
525 n. 1 (Minn. 1995) (citing State v. Lipscomb, 289 Minn. 511, 513 , ) (discussing defendant’s contention that he was subjected to a “racist proceeding”).
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
— affirming the use of anonymous juries in the trial of two of the Haaf murder defendants — we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by impaneling an anonymous jury for Flournoy’s trial.
Kambon v. State 583 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1998
We set forth a (Bowles I).
State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
Circumstantial evidence will permit a conclusion of sufficiency if a detailed review of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are “consistent only with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996
Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System, Final Report (May 1993); , 525 n. 1 (Minn.1995) (referring to the Final Report).
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Flournoy 535 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1995
this court addressed the concern that jury anonymity could lead jurors to infer guilt and, as a result, place a burden on the presumption of innocence.