Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carroll, 639 N.W.2d 623.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deanna Lea King Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A prosecutor does not commit misconduct by complying with the district court’s rulings.” rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Carr Leon Hagerman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Arron Whitney McDole Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court, including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”); State v. Carroll , d 623, 629 n.3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under a different theory.”).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under a different theory.” n.3 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002), Diaz argues that the district court “interfered with [his] exercise of his right to present a defense and confront his accusers.” In Carroll, the victim stated in a video recording that no one had ever touched her inappropriately.
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Overruled State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n. 3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue under 8 a different theory.”), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain [appellate] review by raising the same issue under a different theory.”), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The rape-shield law “is a legislative limitation of a citizen’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses,” review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002), and it renders inadmissible in criminal-sexual-conduct cases “evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct,” Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(reversing conviction where district court erroneously precluded appellant from cross-examining the victim about her conflicting versions of appellant’s activity and that of another man she accused of the same activity where both statements were introduced into evidence).
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Cunningham 663 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Cunningham 663 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. May 15, 2002).
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(quotation omitted); see Minn.Stat.