DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692.

182 citing documents.

  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
  • Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    The court found O.B.’s story to be “poppycock” for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
  • Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
  • Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
    Following remand from this court, Dobbins filed a which applies to claims of newly discovered evidence.
  • Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
    and the legal standard for claims of false testimony established in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928), the postconviction court concluded that Torres satisfied neither standard.
  • Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
  • Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
    A when the petitioner establishes that: “(1) the evidence was not known to the petitioner or counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the evidence before trial was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and (4) the
  • Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
  • Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
    When a petitioner offers newly discovered evidence, and the petitioner must allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy all four prongs from Rainer.
  • Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
  • Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
    ence, a petitioner must establish: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable- result.” 2
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
    To receive an evidentiary hearing on a timely postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, a defendant is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence
  • Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
  • Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
    () (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
    which requires a petitioner to establish that: (1) the evidence was not known to the petitioner or counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the evidence before trial was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
    t the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.” -94 (Minn.2009) ().
  • Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
  • Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
  • Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
  • Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
    Dobbins is not entitled to postcon-viction relief.
  • Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
  • Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
    vidence, a petitioner must establish: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.” (citation omitted).
  • Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
  • Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
  • Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
  • Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
    the basis of new evidence, Wright has to show: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more *94 favorable result.”
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
  • Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
  • Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
  • Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007