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. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90.

85 citing documents.

  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
    Arredondo argues that under State v. Moore (Moore I), a guilty verdict of first-degree misdemeanor manslaughter is legally inconsistent with guilty verdicts of first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder, because first-degree misdemeanor manslaughter is “a crime of negligence” whereas the others are “specific intent crimes.” The defendant
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    -40 (Minn.2001); -51 (Minn.1996); -95 (Minn.1990) (Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
  • Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
    See, e.g., Dukes II, d at 254 ; (concluding defendant acquiesced to concessions); (concluding defendant’s immediate objection to the concessions proved lack of consent or acquiescence); , 480 n. 3 (Minn.1989) (citing Wiplinger as an example of an error that renders a trial “fundamentally unfair”); (citi
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • Dukes v. State 621 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2001
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
    This court recognizes the “basic principle that a criminal defense attorney cannot admit his client’s guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client’s consent to this strategy.”
  • Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
  • Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
  • Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
    fields of psychology and psychiatry”); -20 (Minn.1992) (affirming the district court’s admission of expert testimony based on DNA test results because the principles underlying forensic DNA testing are generally accepted, and the laboratory complied with the appropriate standards and controls, thus rendering the results legally reliable); -98 (Minn.1990) (affirming the district court’s admission of expert testimony on blood spatter interpretation where the district court determined that the theo
  • Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
    Foundational reliability “requires the ‘proponent of a * * * test [to] establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.’ ” ().
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Landherr 542 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Landherr 542 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    § 609.205(1)); (reversing conviction, holding that jury returned inconsistent verdicts of premeditated murder and second-degree manslaughter, because it is impossible for an individual to have the specific intent to kill someone while also causing that person’s death through neg-Hgence).
  • State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
    While many other courts have rejected the argument that a distinction can be made which allows the defendant relief if the verdicts may be said to be legally (rather than logically) inconsistent, we made such a distinction in an unrelated Moore ease, -95 (Minn.1990) (hereinafter Moore II).
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
    at 37 ( , 95 n. 5 (Minn.1990)); cf. State v. Thurston, 299 Minn. 30, 35 , (indicating that when instructing on lesser offenses the trial court should make it clear to the jury which offense is in fact the lesser offense).
  • State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
    On the use of the Frye rule in Minnesota, (“blood splatter” analysis), (polygraph evidence) cert.
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
    -61 (Minn.1984); -96 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
    (defendant immediately objected at trial); (defendant objected to attorney’s representation).
  • State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Consistency of verdicts After trial in this case, but before sentencing, holding that verdicts of guilty of first degree premeditated murder and of second degree culpable negligence manslaughter are legally inconsistent.
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991