DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511.

81 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
    In order for plain error to exist, “ ‘the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice — should not forfeit his right to a remedy.’ ” ().
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
    (in general, “were they lying” questions are improper).
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
    (noting that in general “were they lying” questions are improper); (concluding that prosecutor’s elicitation of testimony from witnesses that they believed the victim’s version of events was improper); -10 (Minn.198
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
    To constitute plain error, “the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice— should not forfeit his right to a remedy.” ().
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    -18 (Minn.1999), the supreme court stated, “[T]he trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — -and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice — s
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Situations may arise where “were they lying” questions may have probative value in clarifying a particular line of testimony, in evaluating the credibility of a witness claiming that everyone but the witness lied or, as in Overlee, the witness “flatly denies the occurrence of events.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    I. Consent to Enter Appellant’s Home “When a search is conducted pursuant to consent however, neither probable cause nor a warrant is required.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (stating that it is jury’s province to determine witness credibility).
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000