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. Eling, 355 N.W.2d 286.

89 citing documents.

  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
    In that case we stated: In general, rebuttal evidence consists of that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence, and “the determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (citing State v. Collins, 276 Minn. 459, 473 , cert.
  • State v. Brown 500 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Brown 500 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
    The “determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (citing State v. Collins, 276 Minn. 459, 473 , cert.
  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
    To prevail in her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant “must demonstrate not only that certain conduct or errors of counsel were unreasonable, but that [she] was constitutionally prejudiced thereby.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
    In general, rebuttal evidence consists of that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence, and “the determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (citing State v. Collins, 276 Minn. 459, 473 , cert.
  • State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
    State v. Walker, 306 Minn. 105, 112 , cert, denied sub nom.
  • State v. Anderson 439 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Anderson 439 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    (lack of showing of informant’s reliability is not fatal where the tip is corroborated); (warrant may place “minimal reliance” on informant’s tip even if informant’s reliability not shown where there is an independent source).
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1989
    (police made extensive efforts verifying informant’s identity and source of information).
  • Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
  • Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The state notes that “the determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.”
  • State v. Krech 399 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Krech 399 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (lack of showing of informant’s reliability is not fatal where the tip is corroborated); (warrant may place “minimal reliance” on informant’s tip even if informant’s reliability not shown where there is an independent source).
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • Danielski v. State 395 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Danielski v. State 395 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Appellant must further establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Randle 381 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Randle 381 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
    He was convicted by a jury
  • State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct.