Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Langley, 354 N.W.2d 389.

65 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, (concluding that prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing that “if we are to have law enforcement in this country it has to come with the fair and impartial deliberations of a jury 10 such as yourselves”); (concluding that prosecutor engaged
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
929 , 173 L.Ed.2d 101 (2009) ; State v. Langley , , 398 (Minn. 1984) (same), abrogated on other grounds , State v. Her
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
In State v. Langley, we rejected a similar argument, stating that “[i]n Minnesota, the law has long been that medical experts are permitted to give their opinions upon the very issue which the jury will have to decide.”
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
the trial court ruled at the beginning of the trial that evidence related to appellant’s prior acts of violence against Xia Vang were relevant but could be subject to a foundation objection during trial.
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
We have said that “[ejvidence that pertains to the relationship between a defendant and a homicide victim ⅜ * * is admissible in criminal prosecutions * * * for the purpose of showing motive and the history of the relationship with the victim * *
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
359 , 112 L.Ed.2d 322 (1990)
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
Rairdon, d at 324 (-02 (Minn.1984)).
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Shepard 473 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Shepard 473 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
We have stated: Reversal becomes a question of whether the ‘jury could reasonably conclude, under the facts and any legitimate inferences that the defendant was guilty.’ (), pet.
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
where hearsay statements of a homicide victim regarding fear of a defendant were admitted, but appellant does not explain how these cases are analogous to the hearsay in question.
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larson 429 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Larson 429 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Reversal becomes a question of whether the “jury could reasonably conclude, under the facts and any legitimate inferences, that the defendant was guilty.”
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(the weight of the circumstantial evidence negated the possibility of accidental death); (circumstantial evidence did not rationally suggest that victim or a third party caused victim’s death).
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, (evidence of prior assaultive relationship necessary to explain bruises on victim).
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986