Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. James, 520 N.W.2d 399.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We acknowledge that the district court instructed the jury to rely on its own understanding of the events depicted in the video, and that “[j]urors are presumed to follow instructions.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Even assuming without deciding that an error occurred, “the jury must be presumed to have followed the court’s instructions and to have disregarded any question to which an objection was sustained.” (“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And, indeed, “courts have allowed peremptory challenges 7 based on residence when related to the facts of the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“This evidence is not to be used to prove the character of the defendant, or that defendant acted in conformity with such character.” “We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court and thereby recognize the effectiveness of curative instructions.” (quotation omitted); see also Welle, d at 366 ().
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See State v. James , (“[S]ince the trial court found his first reason was not pretextual, and we do not find that decision clearly erroneous, we need not review the second reason.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that in the context of the entire proceeding, a prosecu tor’s improper comment was harm less).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); Scott, d at 548 .
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
(citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct.
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
the exercise of a peremptory challenge is a factual determination that is to be made by the district court and should be given great deference on review”); Taylor, d at 200-01 (“[w]hether there is racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge is a factual determination to be made by the district court and is entitled to great *507 deference on review”); (“[w]hether racial discrimination has been proved is an essentially factual determination which typically will turn largely on
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
at 201 (-04 (Minn.1994)).
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
-04 (Minn.1994) (discussing the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s reason for striking a juror was pretextual).
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
(holding that if the evidence and the instruction are neither complex nor confusing, it must be presumed that the jury understood and followed the court’s instruction).
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
(holding that if the evidence and the instruction are neither complex nor confusing, it must be presumed that the jury understood and followed the court’s instruction).
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(Batson issue of racial discrimination turns largely on evaluation of credibility).
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(stating general rule against opinions).
State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995