DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801.

31 citing documents.

  • Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
  • Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
    Because appellant did not prove that the State’s actions constituted “egregious misconduct” the postconviction court properly refused to grant use immunity to appellant’s witnesses.
  • State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
    See Earl, d at 722 n. 1; White, d at 509
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
  • LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
    -09 (Minn.1985); see also State ex rel.
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    § 609.09, “it is the prosecuting attorney alone who may request use immunity for a witness.”
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
    See Earl, d at 722 ; (holding that jury instructions virtually identical to the ones used in this case, when read as a whole, did not confuse or mislead the jury or materially misstate the law); -10 (Minn.1985) (holding that the “reasonable foreseeability” test for accomplice liability did not allow jurors to return a verdict on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
    See White, d at 509 (holding that jury instructions identical to the ones used in this case, when read as a whole, did not confuse or mislead the jury or materially misstate the law); -10 (Minn.1985) (holding that the “reasonable foreseeability” test for accomplice liability did not allow jurors to return a verdict on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
    .W.2d 30, 33-34 (Minn.1996) (holding that where jury instructions in first-degree murder require the jury to find that defendant acted with intent to aid, advise, hire, counsel, or conspire with or otherwise procure the other to commit murder, instructions did not relieve the state of any part of its burden of proof and, therefore, did not violate defendant’s due process rights); -10 (Minn.1985) (holding that jury instruction pursuant to statute on accomplice liability was not erroneous as allow
  • In Re Contempt of Ecklund 636 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Contempt of Ecklund 636 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (citing Hansen, d at 104 ).
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
    321, 326 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); -06 (Minn.1985).
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Forcier 415 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Forcier 415 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986