DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

124 citing documents.

  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
    We may, however, review Blanche’s argument of prosecutorial misconduct under a plain-error analysis to determine whether “the alleged conduct 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. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (misstating burden of proof constitutes prosecutorial misconduct).
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
    If the misconduct was serious, “the misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.”
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
    In the context of a criminal trial, “[mjisstate-ments of the burden of proof are highly improper.”
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
    1; see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 , 80 S.Ct.
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    3375, 3382-83 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); , 299 & n. 6 (Minn.2000) (noting inquiry-under Minnesota Constitution allows for harmless error analysis for undisclosed evidence, “not granting a new trial where the evidence could not in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury”).