Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pierson v. State, 637 N.W.2d 571.

37 citing documents.

Marcus Anthony Baker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: T. K. H., B. M. P., G. J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: T. K. H., B. M. P., G. J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of 13 reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).
Alexander John Cookson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Grant Lloyd Greenwood, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A16-1270 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. M. and L. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1270 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. M. and L. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
must overcome the strong presumption that his attorney’s performance was “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
evidence is to the state’s case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When weighing the probative value of character evidence against its prejudicial effect, “the court must consider how crucial the [character] evidence is to the state’s case.” (quotation omitted); see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 184, 117 S. Ct. 644, 652 18 (1997) (noting that probative value of evidence under the federal analogue to rule 403 “may be calculated by comparing evidentiary alternatives”).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In weighing these considerations, “the court must consider how crucial the Spreigl evidence is to the state’s case.”
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
(citing Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
...”); Whittaker, d at 672 (holding that when petitioner was with witness on the night of the murder, petitioner was aware of the substance of witness’s testimony); (“Pierson and Smith were together throughout the events....
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
at 671 ; (holding that the newly discovered evidence exception is inapplicable when the evidence shows that the petitioner undoubtedly knew at the time of trial that the co-participant had information regarding the petitioner’s involvement in those events); -50 (Minn.1999)
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
-72 (Minn.2008) (rejecting newly discovered evidence claim under the first prong of Rainer because “testimony cannot be ‘unknown’ if the petitioner was admittedly present at the time of the events the witness purports to describe.”); (concluding that the petitioner “undoubtedly knew that [the witness] had information regarding [petitioner’s] involvement” where the petitioner and witness were together during the events in question).
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance “falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).