Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196.

69 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has expressed concern “about permitting a jury, particularly in a criminal case, to d eliberate late into the 3 night without a recess,” and stated as a general rule that district courts “should intervene at an appropriate time and order an overnight recess.”
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
he justifiable-taking-of-life instruction modified, if the defendant claims that he did not intend to kill-the victim); (“[E]ven where death has resulted from a defendant’s action, the judge should use [the general instruction] if the defendant’s theory does not include a concession that there was an intent to kill.”); (noting that an instruction that “ ‘the killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm’ is language that would better fit a ca
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
without more, does not raise a presumption of prejudice.” (applying Sanders).
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
See, (“Ordinarily, a convicted criminal defendant who seeks a new trial because of alleged trial error bears the burden of convincing the appellate court not only that error occurred but that it was prejudicial.”).
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
See, ("Ordinarily, a convicted criminal defendant who seeks a new trial because of alleged trial error bears the burden of convincing the appellate court not only that error occurred but that it was prejudicial.”).
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
“In this state, it is a long-standing precedent that sequestration of jurors during deliberation is necessary to protect defendants against even the possibility of outside influence or jury tampering.” (Wahl, J., concurring specially).
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(listing certain trial errors that are presumptively prejudicial).
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
“[A] criminal defendant seeking a new trial for an alleged defect in proceedings bears the burden of showing not only that there was a defect but that the defect was prejudicial.” ().
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
cher, (concluding defendant acquiesced to concessions); (concluding defendant’s immediate objection to the concessions proved lack of consent or acquiescence); , 480 n. 3 (Minn.1989) (citing Wiplinger as an example of an error that renders a trial “fundamentally unfair”); (citing Wiplinger as example of error that warrants a new trial); (citing Wiplinger for the proposition that defense counsel cannot impliedly admit defendant’s guilt).
State v. Varner 643 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 2002
State v. Varner 643 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 2002
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
2078 ; (recognizing that with respect to constitutional errors in a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of showing the error was harmless); (recognizing that with respect to “presumptively prejudicial” errors, the state bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
-01 (Minn.1985) (giving substantially same jury instruction for self-defense and defense of dwelling claims).
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
the defendant claimed that the victim, with whom he had been socializing earlier, “came charging in” to his house, picked up a knife and said he was going to kill him.
State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
However, when instructing on self-defense, courts must use “analytic precision.” ().
State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 , 74 S.Ct.
State v. Watkins 526 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Watkins 526 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(convicted criminal defendant seeking new trial ordinarily bears burden of demonstrating prejudicial error); (applying rebuttable presumption rule when alternate is in jury room during deliberations).
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
403; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 40, 46-47 , ).
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990