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. Gassler, 505 N.W.2d 62.

200 citing documents.

  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    The rationale for admitting felonies that do not directly implicate honesty is that the jury should be allowed to consider a testifying witness as a “whole person.”
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Furthermore, “a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses.”
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
    (allowing state sentence to run consecutively to fed *380 eral sentence so long as sentence does not exaggerate criminality of conduct).
  • State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “[IJmpeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony.” (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating that impeachment by prior conviction allows the jury to “see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of [a defendant’s] testimony” (quotation omitted)).
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Given the state of the record, the Court can only conclude that Petitioner’s trial counsel did not exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.”
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    But impeachment by a prior conviction “aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of [the defendant’s] testimony.” (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (“[I]mpeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony.” (quotations omitted)).
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
    es’ request that the jury be instructed that circumstantial evidence “may be of the highest and most conclusive kind of proof, but in order to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence alone, all circumstances proved must be consistent with that conclusion and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.” Such an instruction is not required, as we have made plain that instructing on direct and circumstantial evidence with an instruction on proof beyond a reasona
  • State v. Robledo-Kinney 615 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robledo-Kinney 615 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
    In Minnesota, an attorney acts within that objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with the “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (internal quotation and citation omitted).
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Gassler v. State 590 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1999
  • Gassler v. State 590 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
    In Minnesota, an attorney acts within the objective standard of reasonableness when he provides his client with “the representation of an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).
  • State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
    (stating that defendant must accept the court-appointed attorney); Vance, d at 358 .
  • State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
    First, this court has stated that “impeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Hofmann 549 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hofmann 549 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (upholding admission of prior convictions under rule 609(a)(1) even though trial court did not specify which part of rule 609(a) applied).
  • State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994