Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 578 N.W.2d 734.

67 citing documents.

State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
-39 (Minn. 1998) (weapon connected with murder found at perpetrator’s acquaintance’s house where perpetrator was arrested); -22 (Minn.1997) (same).
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
2041, 2048 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
(‘Where common authority does not actually exist, consent to entry is still valid where, under an objective standard, an officer reasonably believes the third party has authority over the premises and could give consent to enter.”).
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
*208 We have stated that “[n]o purpose is served by comparing [a defendant] to another charged with a notorious crime other than to attempt to impassion the jury * * (discussing prosecutor’s argument that defendant was going to kill his victim “like O.J.”).
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
Similarly, we have stated that arguments that ask jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are generally improper, and we have condemned arguments that invite the jury to speculate about the facts
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(consent to entry is well-recognized exception to warrant requirement).