Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Costello, 646 N.W.2d 204.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
See Brown v. State , State v. Mims
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Costello , 214 (Minn. 2002).
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; (noting that a defendant’s fundamental rights outweigh the factfinding mission of our adversarial judicial process).
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
Clark asserts that “the rationale of Bigelow applies equally to non-capital cases.” Costello and Logan , however, are also clearly distinguishable.
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
But it is also a system designed to protect ‘freedom’ by insuring that no one is criminally punished unless the State has first succeeded in the admittedly difficult task of convincing a jury that the defendant is guilty.” (quoting Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 113 , 90 S.Ct.
Danforth v. State 700 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Danforth v. State 700 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
For example, we held that allowing jurors to question witnesses was error and was not subject to a harmless-error analysis because it would be impossible to determine the effects of the error.
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. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002