DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. DeVerney, 592 N.W.2d 837.

76 citing documents.

  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (finding no prejudice when court instructed jury at beginning and at end of trial that cases against co-defendants were to be considered separately); , 631 n. 4 (Minn.2000) (setting out new cautionary instruct
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
    This court reviews district court rulings on joinder of defendants by making, “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” ().
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
    The court, in interpreting subdivision 3(3), took guidance from the federal rules as well as two of our cases that were decided after Santiago’s trial —
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    at 1724 n. 20 (noting that a prosecutor may ordinarily exercise a peremptory challenge “for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried” (quotation omitted)); (stating that the explanation need not be “valid in the sense of establishing a reasonable basis for challenge, * * * persuasive, or even plausible” as long as it is race-neutral and not inherently discriminatory (citations and quotations omitted)).
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
    In order to establish a prima facie, case for a Batson challenge, the defendant must show: (1) “that one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily excluded from the jury”; and (2) “that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
    -41 (Minn.1999); -96 (Minn.1999); -77 (Minn.1999).
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999