Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214.

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
(quoting Greenleaf, d at 500).
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See id.; (holding that a close family member’s involvement with the legal system is a legitimate race-neutral reason for the state to exercise a preemptory challenge).
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
603(b); (“The witness must be given a prior opportunity to admit, deny or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.”); (“[The witness] was not confronted with these statements on cross-examination
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-24 (Minn. 2000) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-24 (Minn. 2000) (quotations omitted); see, (holding that a statement fell within the excited-utterance exception when a witness testified that the declarant was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
-24 (Minn.2000) (citations omitted).
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
(“We give great deference to the district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, recognizing that the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.” (citations omitted))
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(affirming denial of Schwartz hearing in the absence of evidence that jury was actually exposed to extraneous prejudicial material); cf. Beier, d at 626-27 (approving Schwartz hearing when defendant showed that jurors were exposed to pretrial publicity).
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Reiners, d at 834 (indicating that venire-members’s involvement or relative’s involvement in law enforcement is a legitimate basis for a peremptory challenge); (affirming district court determination that preoccupation and anxiety about possible job loss and finances were race-neutral reasons and not pretextual).
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
In State v. Martin, we said that laying the proper foundation for impeachment requires proof that the statement is “actually inconsistent” or that the declarant “fails to recollect” it, but we held that the witness must also be given the opportunity to “admit, deny or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
(citing Greenleaf, d at 500 , and Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 362 (plurality opinion), 374, 111 S.Ct.
State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (juror’s father’s conviction and imprisonment during juror’s formative years is a valid race-neutral reason to strike juror); DeVerney, d at 843 (Native American prospective juror’s negative feelings towards government and law enforcement, sympathy for imprisoned brother, and history of serio
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
(citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct.
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by