Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Patterson, 587 N.W.2d 45.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
(explaining that a court will not reverse a conviction based on unobjected-to error unless the appellant shows all three prongs of the plain error test are met).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, e.g. , 53 (Minn. 1998) (affirming conviction, concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning the appellant’s discovery violation by excluding testimony of an undisclosed witness, and analyzing whether the excluded testimony was “crucial” to the defense); State v. Scott
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. P. G., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
(holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the defendant from presenting an undisclosed witness during trial who “was not crucial” to the defense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Patterson , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1846 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 9.02, .03; , 50 (Minn. 1998) (stating that all defense witnesses must be disclosed).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting that district “courts hav e broad discretion in imposing sanctions for violations of the discovery rules”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
6 “Trial courts have broad discretion in imposing sanctions for violations of the discovery rules.”
A17-1502 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Demiteras Al Cooper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 444; -48 (Minn. 1998) (discussing Brayboy’s conduct).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The imposition of sanctions for violations of discovery rules and orders is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the [district] court.” State v. Patterson, 8 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether or not to impose a sanction for a discovery violation “is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 matter “particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Accordingly, [appellate courts] will not overturn its ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accordingly, we will not overturn its ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court may prohibit a witness from testifying, although this is a “severe sanction which should not be lightly invoked.”
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
To satisfy the third prong, Davis “bears the heavy burden of showing that there is a reasonable likelihood the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “a defendant’s silence in the face of direct accusation was admissible,” and that ‘“silence under accusation permits an inference that the accused acquiesced in the statement and admitted its truth.’ ” (quoting State v. Brown, 209 Minn. 478, 481 , 296 N.W.
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
Patterson v. State 670 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 2003
Patterson v. State 670 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
An error is prejudicial if there is a “reasonable likelihood the error had a significant' effect on the verdict.” (quoting Griller, d at 740 ).
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999