Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Roman Nose, 667 N.W.2d 386.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mark Andrew Huyber Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he prosecutor may present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, analyze and explain the evidence, and present all proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Casey Love Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-02 (Minn. 2003) (holding that prosecutor’s comments using “we” statements to summarize evidence were not prosecutorial misconduct).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Rossbach Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
But we have also said that, “[o]n remand, it is the duty of the district court to execute the mandate of [the remanding court] strictly according to its terms.”
State of Minnesota v. Trajion Terrance Conner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The trial court has no power to alter, amend, or modify [this court’s] mandate.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
Pursuant to the product rule, "the probability of a random match at each loci is multiplied together.” , 393 n. 3 (Minn.2003).
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
In an effort to comply with our directives, the judge made a series of rulings adverse to the State, including that “there is to be no [expert gang] testimony based on hearsay.” (“On remand, it is the duty of the district court to execute the mandate of this court strictly according to its terms.”).
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
We have established that “[rjulings on evi-dentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().
State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
State v. Cabrera 700 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2005
State v. Caron, *474 300 Minn. 123, 127-28
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by