Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McDaniel, 534 N.W.2d 290.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that victim’s scars—one six centimeters on his neck and another two-thirds of an inch long on his chest— met the definition of “serious permanent disfigurement” because they were “highly visible,” “large[,]” and “prominently located”), rev. denied (Sept.
Abdullahi Aden Ibrahim v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Abdullahi Aden Ibrahim v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
8; (concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty of first-degree assault when the victim’s injuries were two lacerations and a partially collapsed lung because the victim had permanent raised scars that constituted serious permanent disfigurement).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
19, 1985); (concluding that the victim’s injuries caused serious permanent disfigurement because the victim had an almost one-inch-long permanent raised scar on his chest, and a “highly visible” six- centimeter permanent raised scar on the front of his neck), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. David Francis Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Francis Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When defense counsel responds to allegedly improper comments by taking liberties in his own argument, the court may determine that the improper comments are harmless in the context of the entire trial.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The prosecutor properly attempted to undermine Scruggs’s story, which “differed significantly from that presented by the state’s witnesses.” 10 See State v. McDaniel , (“The prosecutor is allowed to explore discrepancies in testimony .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that a temporary loss of consciousness is substantial bodily harm) ; State v. Carlson , -28 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that evidence of two black eyes, bruises, 6 and scratches was sufficient for a jury to conclude an assault caused substantial bodily harm), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1985); (stating that two prominently located scars constitute permanent disfigurement under the stringent great bodily harm standard), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
[and] the credibility of the defendant and complainant are critical.” d 290, 293 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
7 (2012) (defining bodily harm as “physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition”); (concluding that two-thirds-inch scar on chest and six-centimeter scar on neck were great bodily harm), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
611(b) (stating that “[c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness ” (emphasis added)); (stating that courts generally allow a wide range of inquiry on cross-examination, particularly where there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and credibility is critical), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that two scars, one less than an inch in length on the victim’s chest and one six centimeters long and on his neck constituted great bodily harm), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
revieio denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Wallat, 1997 WL 193914 , No. C1-96-1186 (unpub.)