Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681.

398 citing documents.

State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-88 (Minn.2002) (discussing testimony by officer who testified that he had prior contact with defendant and by accomplice who testified that defendant bragged about prior crimes).
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” (citing Griller, d at 740 ).
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
A district court has “a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
Accordingly, we have held that “[a]s a rule, trial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.” accord Shoop, d at 479 .
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. at 725, 734, 113 S.Ct.
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
Although Reed did not request an accomplice instruction, “trial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
“[Tjrial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
“An error is plain if it was ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’ ” (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
We have held that “trial courts have a duty .to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that it is prosecutorial misconduct to indicate that ■ the jury should make its decision based on which version of the facts is the most “reasonable.”
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“An error is ‘plain’ if it was ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’ ” (citations omitted).
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003