Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294.

124 citing documents.

Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Evidence is material under Brady “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[m]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Finally, a Brady violation also requires a 9 showing of prejudice, in this context “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196–97 (1963)).
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, “[m]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
C. Brady Violation “[T]he suppression by the State, whether intentional or not, of material evidence favorable to the defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.” (citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97); (explaining that the state has a duty to disclose even when there has been no request for the evidence by the defendant and that the remedy for a Brady violation is a new trial).
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[m]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Misstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766 (1972)).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Tscheu, d at 863 (involving a case in which the law had not changed during the pendency of the appeal); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same).
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
D. Burden of proof “Misstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
Evidence is material under Brady “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Even serious misconduct will be found “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.”
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
Absent a timely objection a defendant is entitled to a new trial under the plain-error rule only when “the alleged misconduct was so clearly erroneous under applicable law and so prejudicial to the defendant’s- right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s right to a remedy should not be forfeited.”
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005