Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373.

85 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.2 (Minn. 2001) (“[A] prosecutor’s attempts to shift the burden of proof are often nonprejudicial and harmless where, as here, the district court clearly and thoroughly instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof.”) C. Spreigl Evidence Barsness further asserts that the prosecutor
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.2 (Minn. 2001) (“[A] prosecutor’s attempts to shift the burden of proof are often nonprejudicial and harmless where, as here, the district court clearly and thoroughly instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof.”).
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To invalidate a warrant, the defendant must satisfy the two-prong Franks test by showing that (1) “the officer deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) “the statement was material to the probable 4 cause determination.” (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S. Ct. at 2864).
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
Jenkins, d at 235 (); see also Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 489 , 104 S.Ct.
McDonough v. State 827 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2013
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
Thus, when analyzing a destruetion-of-evidence claim, “we consider whether the destruction was intentional and whether the exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence was apparent and material.” (explaining that State’s intentional release of the motor vehicle in which the victims were killed did not violate McDonough’s right to due process because McDonough failed to show that the evidence had exculpatory value)
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
-86 (Minn.2001) (rejecting Batson challenge and distinguishing McRae , in part, because the jurors were all asked the same questions).
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
-86 (Minn.2001) (holding that the state’s basis for striking the sole prospective African-American juror was race-neutral be *622 cause the state “asked the prospective African American juror virtually the same questions as other prospective jurors who did not answer the same questions in a way that exhibited a bi
McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
-82 (Minn.2001) (McDonough I)..
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
McDonough v. State 675 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2004
McDonough v. State 675 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2004
The facts of the murder, attempted murder, -83 (Minn.2001), and need not be revisited here.
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
its normal pattern of questioning to ask an African-American prospective juror questions about the fairness of the jury system and then exaggerated the effect of the juror’s answers, stating: “[S]he thought that basically, the system is unfair to minorities, and the defendant’s being black ⅛ — -and her being black she would overcompensate by basically letting this guy off.” -86 (Minn.2001), we concluded that the state’s reason for a peremptory challenge was not race-neutral because the questions
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001