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. Grose, 387 N.W.2d 182.

31 citing documents.

  • STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    review dismissed (Minn. Jan.
  • State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    18, 1997); (approving district court’s criticism of prosecutorial comments on a defendant’s likely sentence, which “is totally irrelevant to the issues of probable cause, and only serves to unduly prejudice the grand jury against the defendant”).
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
    In State v. Grose, the court of appeals noted that “[t]he prosecutor is the person who draws up the indictment, calls and examines the witnesses, advises the grand jury about the law, and is in constant attendance during its proceedings.” []
  • State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Martin 567 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Roers 520 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Roers 520 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Where the state often has the opportunity to seek another indictment, to allow an indictment “to stand when the allegations may not be supported by probable cause * * * would result in requiring the defendant to stand trial, and to bear the expense and ignomy of a trial which is not justified.” -87 (Minn.App.1986).
  • State v. Bitz 487 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bitz 487 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    at 466 (threatening members of the jury that they could be picked up by police, handing out instructions from previous grand jurors, and giving inaccurate instructions on probable cause cumulatively prejudicial); -90 (Minn.App.1986) (prosecutor’s improper comments on respondent’s Fifth Amendment *535 rights and refusal to waive the statute of limitations, reference to possible punishment for convicted defendant, misstatement of the law of scienter, improper testimony about the content of a trans
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Johnson 441 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1989
    See also State v. Iosue, 220 Minn. 283, 293
  • STATE OF MINN., CITY OF LITTLE CANADA v. Rachie 427 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • STATE OF MINN., CITY OF LITTLE CANADA v. Rachie 427 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See, (state’s failure to include statement of facts constitutes procedural error but not grounds for dismissal of appeal).
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Inthavong 402 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Inthavong 402 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
    Contrast Abruska v. State, 705 P.2d 1261, 1272 (Alaska App.1985) (prosecutor’s inaccurate instructions not shown to be prejudicial) with a recent decision of our own court of appeals, (prosecutor’s misleading and incomplete instructions so pervasive as to be prejudicial).
  • State v. Mathews 400 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Mathews 400 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Grose 396 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Grose 396 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986