Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Manley, 664 N.W.2d 275.

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(waiving arguments raised in supplemental pro se brief that were “unsupported by any facts in the record” and contained “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (motion to dismiss a juror); (motion to declare a mistrial); (motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct).
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 275, 283 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Zacharie Allen Stankey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zacharie Allen Stankey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(deeming waived arguments on appeal that are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no citation to any relevant legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 275, 286 (Minn. 2003) (granting state’s motion to strike paragraphs from pro se brief that were “unsupported by any facts in the record”).
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that appellate court does not review issues unsupported by record evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–85 (Minn. 2003) (holding that the district court did not 7 abuse its discretion in removing a juror after several days of trial when the juror stated that her sister’s position as a public defender was influencing her ability to be objective); Berrios, d
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(waiving arguments raised in supplemental pro se brief that were “unsupported by any facts in the record” and contained “no citation to any relevant legal authority”).
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
(skipping the first two prongs of the plain-error test and considering only whether the alleged plain error was prejudicial); (noting that while “[n]ormally, we would consider each prong of the plain-error test in order,” the court "need not do so” in this case because the defendant "cannot establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights”).
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-85 (Minn.2003) (reviewing district court’s decision to remove a seated juror for abuse of discretion).
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
4 (2004); , 278 n. 2 (Minn.2003).
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
hat is consistent with the witness’s trial testimony is not hearsay if the statement is “helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” But we have held that before such statements are admissible that “the witness’s credibility must be challenged and the statement must bolster the witness’s credibility with respect to the challenged aspect.”
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
-83 (Minn.2003) (holding that district court did not err in its instructions on the state’s burden of proof — while state was required to prove past pattern of domestic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt it was not required to prove each act making up the past pattern beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Cross, 577 N
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
(upholding an identical element from the first-degree child abuse murder statute).
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Manley , , 283 (Minn. 2003); State v. Baird , , 113 (Minn. 2002); State v. Shoop , , 480 (Minn. 1989).
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
Permitting the foundational requirement to be met on that basis, however, would require that we ignore the line of cases from State v. Bock, 229 Minn. 449