Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715.

33 citing documents.

Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(in camera review of medical records); (evidentiary rulings); 4 (Schwartz hearing).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
William Demont White, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A defendant must present evidence compelling the conclusion that a juror 8 engaged in misconduct, and any evidence about the mental state of jurors that is unrelated to outside influences is inadmissible
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 214, 225-26 (Minn. 2000); Larson, d at 484.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(establishing procedure for investigating claims of juror misconduct).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A18-0742 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A17-0191 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that standard for gra nting a Schwartz hearing).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
19(6), and to obtain a Schwartz hearing, the defense has the “burden of adducing ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’” ()
Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
In order to be entitled to a Schwartz hearing, a “defendant must establish a prima facie case presenting ‘sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would *226 warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’ ” ().
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’ ” ().
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
Although Schwartz hearings are to be liberally granted, in order to justify a Schwartz hearing a defendant still must establish “a prima facie case presenting 'sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.’ ” ().
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“The standard of review for denial of a Sclvwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.”