Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rainer, 411 N.W.2d 490.

111 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 263, 269 (considering whether defendant’s counsel had “ample time” to acquire and review the evidence); (affirming the denial of a continuance because receiving a report 13 days before the start of trial provided sufficient time to address the asserted problem); (considering the length of time between the indictment and trial and the proximity of the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 269 (considering whether defendant’s counsel had “ample time” to acquire and review the evidence); (affirming the denial of a continuance because receiving a report 13 days before the start of trial provided sufficient time to address the asserted problem); (considering the length of time between the indictment and trial and the proximity of the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that 15-year-old incidents were inadmissible) -03 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that 16-year-old incidents were admissible); -98 (Minn. 1987) (concluding that 16- to 19-year-old incidents were admissible); - 43, 242 n.3 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that 19- year-old incidents were admissible); Blom, d at 617 (concluding that 16-year- old incidents were admissible).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Still the state argues that the district c ourt’s admittance of the prior bad-acts evidence was justified under the supreme court’s decisions in State v. Rainer , and Ture, d at 15-16.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 490, 495 (Minn. 1987).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that report disclosed 13 days before the beginning of the defendant’s case did not constitute a serious discovery violation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 490, 495 (Minn. 1987).
State v. Souder 902 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Souder 902 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] conviction will not be reversed for denial of a motion for a continuance except when such denial is a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A defendant must show prejudice to justify reversal.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Ruling on a request for a continuance is within the [district] court’s discretion and a conviction will not be reversed for denial of a motion for a continuance except when such 7 denial is a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
Previously, we concluded that the defendant had sufficient time to formulate a plan between the time he saw the victim from the bottom of a flight of stairs and the time he reached the top of the stairs and shot the victim, and between the time a defendant carried a gun from his living room to the outside of his home
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
at 202-03 ; d at 242 & n. 3; -44 (Minn.1983).
Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
We confronted a a case involving the murder of a woman the defendant had hoped to marry but who had indicated a desire to terminate the relationship.
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
We confronted a similar time gap in State v. Rainer , , 493 (Minn. 1987), a case involving the murder of a woman the defendant had hoped to marry but who had indicated a desire to terminate the relationship.
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002