Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Parker, 353 N.W.2d 122.
-
State v. Starkey
516 N.W.2d 918
Minn. 1994
“Deference is given to jury verdicts and if the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found defendant guilty, the verdict will not be upset.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
- State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
- State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Daniels v. State 447 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1989
- Daniels v. State 447 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1989
- State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
State v. Wilbur
445 N.W.2d 582
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
It is improper to “personally [endorse] the credibility of the state’s witnesses or [to inject] personal opinion * *
- Parker v. State 437 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1989
-
Parker v. State
437 N.W.2d 65
Minn. 1989
we affirmed the 1983 conviction of Stanford Lee Parker (hereafter “petitioner”) of first-degree felony murder in the robbery and shooting death of Albert James.
- State v. Larson 429 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Larson 429 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Kastner 429 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Kastner 429 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Holscher 417 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Holscher
417 N.W.2d 698
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-28 (Minn.1984) (defendant is deemed to have waived right to raise issue concerning prosecutor’s closing remarks if defendant fails to object or seek cautionary instructions, but reviewing court may nevertheless reverse if statements are unduly prejudicial).
- State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Duea 414 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Duea 414 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. White
411 N.W.2d 196
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“The propriety of a prosecutor’s final argument is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted).
- City of Grand Rapids v. Jarvi 410 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- City of Grand Rapids v. Jarvi 410 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gonzalez 407 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gonzalez 407 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
-
State v. Harris
405 N.W.2d 224
Minn. 1987
In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, we are “required to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and must assume that the jury disbelieved any testimony conflicting with the result reached.” (citations omitted).
- Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987